I’m saying in legal terms a duopoly is considered to be just as bad as a monopoly.
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.
Australian Watchdog Wants iOS Users to Have More Control Over Preinstalled Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The government could weaken or remove laws that allow restrictions on parallel imports (though they may also have to relax regulations about where frequency restrictions are implemented in firmware/software).
They can't do anything about fuel pricing without legislation to fix the tax/antitrust evasion through the Singapore exchange or legislation to reduce the burden of proof and expand the definition of collusion, since the fuel retailers have put in some effort to look like they're competing and not just matching prices all the time. In both cases the businesses concerned own a lot of politicians, whereas Apple and Google haven't, so the ACCC can act.
You don't need an explicit agreement to collude if everyone just matches what the market leaders are doing. Closed platform controllers consistently charging app/game developers 30% regardless of their costs, business model (whether the hardware was sold as a loss leader), platform maturity, and so on was a good example of that.
It’s not simply a “different opinion” when you are trying to force YOUR way of doing things on other people whether they like it or not and leaving them with no alternatives. That’s the definition of entitled and it fits you perfectly.
I’m not forcing anything. Please explain what I said I was forcing upon you. While you seem to be stuck forcing us to listen to your wants.
Or it’s an example of charging what the market will bear. Many competing products are priced similarly, say soda in vending machines for example. Why? Because people will pay that much and the companies want to make as much money as possible. If/when someone wants to try and undercut the other they can try it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
Meanwhile Apples 30% cut was LOWER than retail software distributors for example. And it’s been successful! Why should they change it if it’s working? No one is forced to make an App or sell it on the App Store. It’s a choice they make. Either it’s worth it or it’s not. They know going in EXACTLY what Apples fee structure is. If they think it’s too high they can withhold their product and hope consumers pressure Apple to change or develop for Android instead, which offers more distribution options.
It’s absurd that forcing Apple to change its approach is on the table. Customers already have choices. Just because they can’t get everything they want doesn’t mean others should be compelled to give it to them. Apps are not a necessity.
You know nothing about the law then, monopolies are not the same as duopolies. They are not regulated the same, the same laws do not apply equally to both cases.
Wasn't this why Microsoft was split or put up for monopoly, something like that? They shipped Explorer built in free which was considered anti-competitive against Netscape?
Either way, there should be a law that an OS should come bare metal and you choose the software add-ons.
Either way, there should be a law that an OS should come bare metal and you choose the software add-ons.
Absolutely.
If for example Apple wants to sell their products in the European market, they have to deal with EU laws, high VAT (compared to US sales tax) and all those pesky consumer rights. They evaluate if it's worth doing business there or not. The Apple Card for example is still not available in EU countries.
Why should it be different for software developers entering the App Store market?
No, it’s not.
First Microsoft was never split up.
Second, Microsoft was actually a monopoly as it controlled over 90% of the computer market.
Third, Microsoft was accused of using that monopoly position to force PC makers into licensing agreements that forced them to pay a fee even for computers without windows on them, and to prevent them from pre-installing other browsers.
Fourth, while browser choice was part of the issue, one of the reasons was because it was much more difficult in those easy days to get and install 3rd party browsers due to low internet speeds. This is no longer an issue.
Meanwhile, the settlement resulted in Microsoft only being required to document certain APIs to allow interoperability. They were not required to stop including IE, nor, in the US, forced to included other browsers.
And ultimately IE was dethroned as the most popular browser anyway by superior alternatives (at least at the time) of Chrome and Firefox. Apple even released Safari on Windows for a time.
Apple is not even close to 90% of the smartphone market, it’s trivial to download other apps, and Apple isn’t imposing fees on other iPhone makers because there ARE no other iPhone makers. The cases are not remotely similar.