Not allow competitors to do whatever but the antitrust law actually says companies with a monopoly position have to abide by a different set of rules than companies which don't have a monopoly position. This is done to safeguard competition and prevent monopolies from leveraging their position in one market to extend their monopolies into other markets.
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's Past Sideloading Plans, Ecosystem Lock-in Strategy, and More Revealed in Internal Documents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like an opinion to me. These guys can say/posture what they want. The proof will be judical actions that force a change to the way apple and google operates. Assuming such regulations are passed and don't up to SOCTUS and are overturned or not.
Don't you have to show harm for a monopoly to be illegal?
If there's only one internet provider in town... they can raise prices and consumers are stuck paying those high prices.
But apps are available on the App Store for as low as $1 or free... despite Apple running the only store. There's actually more software, and cheaper software, than ever before!
People keep trying to equate the App Store to all sorts of monopolies of the past... AT&T, Standard Oil, etc.
But honestly... it's not quite the same. So it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
And some of these proposed legislations won't only affect Apple and Google. They should affect Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and others.
Imagine a law that said Amazon must sell Kindle books from stores other than Amazon themselves...
If there's only one internet provider in town... they can raise prices and consumers are stuck paying those high prices.
But apps are available on the App Store for as low as $1 or free... despite Apple running the only store. There's actually more software, and cheaper software, than ever before!
People keep trying to equate the App Store to all sorts of monopolies of the past... AT&T, Standard Oil, etc.
But honestly... it's not quite the same. So it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
And some of these proposed legislations won't only affect Apple and Google. They should affect Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and others.
Imagine a law that said Amazon must sell Kindle books from stores other than Amazon themselves...
All companies deemed to be monopolies are done so by opinion of the Federal government, as per the government's interpretation of relevant antitrust law. Companies are free to challenge those opinions and their resulting sanctions in the courts.
Wow, Phil had some tough words, and rightfully so. It seems that either Apple had been hiring slackers, or outsourcing their flows to the wrong companies (eg. the app review process). Well, you did what you could Phil. Just don't look back and see what Apple is turning into now.
The fact there are $1 or free apps in the app store in areas that don't compete with Apple doesn't prove that Apple hasn't hurt the market in areas where apps do compete with Apple. The prime example is in Apple Music - competitors have to pay a 30% revenue fee that Apple doesn't.
And I'm sure if possible that is what these companies will do. But until legislation is successfully in place remediating this opinion, it's still an opinion.
But doesn't Spotify have three times as many users as Apple Music?
Clearly they're not being harmed by Apple's rules.
Hell... you can't even pay for Spotify through the App Store anymore. So Spotify is paying exactly 0% to Apple.
And that law will have to pass muster with SCOTUS. I cannot think of a prior case where a company was deemed a monopoly on itself. The market would have to be so restrictive to be iOS phones (single entity). The market should be mobile phones (multiple entity).
I all ready made one comment today referencing the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. I refuse to do it twice.
People think Apple is somehow different. Deserving of our trust as consumers, a company that believes in doing the right thing, etc. Nope
You wanna know whatmy Tim's vision is? Dollar signs, money! I didn't build this...to usher in a new era for Humanity. I built this so I could retire to some tropical island....
It is, and always will be about the cash. So can we finally dispense with the idea that Apple is somehow a noble outlier in the world of corporations and just admit it's just another cash engine. No different than Google, Samsung, or Facebook?
They make nice stuff, most of the time it's good stuff. Often it's the best stuff, which is why I buy it.
Apple is overdue to make a proverbial Cadillac Cimarron. Still not happy with my last 2 MBP's and the CSAM business.
My next laptop probably won't be a Mac at this point. The price point to quality ratio is too out of whack. The last 2 I had display issues (that I had to fight Apple to pay me back for after I paid for a repair 1 month out of warranty) or keyboard issues.
I can't imagine offerings from Microsoft or Dell are THAT much worse. Apple = hubris.
People think Apple is somehow different. Deserving of our trust as consumers, a company that believes in doing the right thing, etc. Nope
You wanna know what
It is, and always will be about the cash. So can we finally dispense with the idea that Apple is somehow a noble outlier in the world of corporations and just admit it's just another cash engine. No different than Google, Samsung, or Facebook?
They make nice stuff, most of the time it's good stuff. Often it's the best stuff, which is why I buy it.
Apple is overdue to make a proverbial Cadillac Cimarron. Still not happy with my last 2 MBP's and the CSAM business.
My next laptop probably won't be a Mac at this point. The price point to quality ratio is too out of whack. The last 2 I had display issues (that I had to fight Apple to pay me back for after I paid for a repair 1 month out of warranty) or keyboard issues.
I can't imagine offerings from Microsoft or Dell are THAT much worse. Apple = hubris.
That’s an opinion with no legal weight. It’s only a little better than the comment section on the average Apple article because it lacks the emotional bias.
The harm done to consumers by any monopoly doesn't have to be monetary.
What insanely great mobile OS and phones have not come to market due to Apple and Google's duopoly on mobile OS:es? We probably will never know.
What insanely great mobile OS and phones have not come to market due to Apple and Google's duopoly on mobile OS:es? We probably will never know.
No new legislation is required. The Federal government already has the power to regulate and sanction companies it deems as monopolistic per existing antitrust laws.
These proposed laws run the risk of the court deciding that corporations are afforded equal protection under the law which would unwind a lot of the government’s regulatory ability. Especially regulations designed to target specific business in one industry while exempting similar businesses in another.
Apple's monopoly is in their iPhone app store. They're attempting to leverage that monopoly into the music subscription market. They don't have to succeed in that endeavor for their behavior to be deemed illegal. It's the act of trying to unfairly leverage a monopoly that's de facto illegal.But doesn't Spotify have three times as many users as Apple Music?
Clearly they're not being harmed by Apple's rules.
Hell... you can't even pay for Spotify through the App Store anymore. So Spotify is paying exactly 0% to Apple.
You are claiming that the opinion of a Congressional subcommittee holds the same legal weight as the comment section on MacRumors? Which of the two do you believe is most likely to result in Federal antitrust action?
And all corporations are supposed be returning the best ROI to the shareholders that they can. that is their corporate obligation.
Actually this is lifted from internal communication they were forced to provide in the Epic lawsuit and Epic made it public. The comment is likely part of what inspired the creation of the project, not one made to defend it.To make the statement.. Though..
"the greatest platform for distributing child porn."
There are a lot better platforms to send "sensitive data" This is Apple just changing the optics of the conversation to make them look good and give them a vehicle to launch their scanning project.
But this goes back to what coachgq said, so it you become so good at something that everybody buys your product, you now become a monopoly? so you have to degrade you product? So back at some point Apple almost bit it. Then microsoft would have been a monopoly (not that they are not already) Almost every device with an embedded OS seems to be windoze maybe they need to look at that /s
I like Schiller’s idea of taking some app store revenue and feeding it back into marketing. They do that now and have courses for young coders.
I like Schiller’s idea of purging low rated apps and clone apps.
Some of these chats took place many years ago before ransomware and pirate apps with embedded miners and spyware.
If they knew then what we know now, that ransomware is prolific and deadly, and that very extreme people like Peter Thiel and the crypto boys want to completely rob us of our money, our privacy, our government and make us their slaves then they wouldn’t have even had a discussion about side loading.
Side loading should be off the books or we are dead as a civilisation. Every block, every city will be at war because extremist misinformation will spread like mad deep into phones on every street. There will be dozens of platforms, some so extreme and unmoderated they will cause mass mania.
I like Schiller’s idea of purging low rated apps and clone apps.
Some of these chats took place many years ago before ransomware and pirate apps with embedded miners and spyware.
If they knew then what we know now, that ransomware is prolific and deadly, and that very extreme people like Peter Thiel and the crypto boys want to completely rob us of our money, our privacy, our government and make us their slaves then they wouldn’t have even had a discussion about side loading.
Side loading should be off the books or we are dead as a civilisation. Every block, every city will be at war because extremist misinformation will spread like mad deep into phones on every street. There will be dozens of platforms, some so extreme and unmoderated they will cause mass mania.
The only way this holds water is to completely change the legal definition of a monopoly.The market is cell phones and smart phones. The software on that device is cannot be a monopoly because there are other devices. Apple does not hold a monopoly in this or any other market. And customer like me pay for the very protections politicians are trying to take away to force Android’s failures on us.
I don't see preventing Apple from gaining an unfair advantage in other markets as degrading the product in their existing market. The law doesn't prevent them from competing in other markets but does prescribe a set of rules they have to follow to do so fairly.