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.
Dutch Antitrust Watchdog to Investigate Whether Apple Gives Itself Preferential Treatment in App Store [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, cause Apple really could use a declining market these days. Gee, what a splendid suggestion, you must be american, right? /s
Yes, but Apple had to invest significant sums to develop the products and software necessary to technically be able to offer apps to the public, whether people buy Apple apps or third-party apps. Apple paid for the development of the app store, and took a substantial risk by investing in a platform that was unproven. To offer the use of its platform to a third party that made no investment in the platform, and only sought to use it once it has shown to be a viable means of selling to consumers, all for free is unfair to Apple. The price of admission Apple charges gives an incentive to Apple as well as to potential competitors to develop superior platforms at a lower cost of investment, and a lower cost to third parties. The U.S. has long offered incentives to inventors to develop technology that will be regarded as sufficiently useful to justify awarding the inventor an exclusive right to use and to license. The fact that much of the technology in use throughout the world today is based on inventions filed in the U.S. shows the merits of offering high rewards and protection to those who make valuable contributions to society.
Of course, other countries may have different goals, favoring a more economically equal society. For a country with that goal, permitting access to the work product of others at a cost far less than the expenditure of the inventor is natural. It would be fine within the country to have laws that are intended to bring about the desired cultural environment, regardless of whether other countries favor diametrically opposite cultures. In today's world, though, and especially in technology, companies operate in many countries outside the place of origin, and that's a situation where it's impossible to apply a single set of rules in every country. Of course, Holland can't force Apple to sell its products in Holland, but Apple has to choose between doing business in the Netherlands under conditions it regards as unfair, or refusing to sell its products and services in that country and forsaking the revenue and profits it could earn.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Google doesn’t manufacture their own phones (except for the Pixel, which frankly irrelevant from a market share perspective). Apple manufactures their own phone. THIS is the most important thing in this discussion.
Let me put it another way, Coca Cola can’t prohibit a supermarket from selling Pepsi. After all they don’t own the supermarket where Coca Cola is sold. However, Walmart can select whichever products they want to sell at their store - including new THEIR OWN BRANDS. Who can say it’s unfair? They own the store where things are sold after all.
Android cannot be locked down to Google’s apps inasmuch other companies manufacture hardware for Android OS to be installed. By its turn, Apple manufactures BOTH hardware AND software, and they can do as they want in their store policies.
[doublepost=1555010540][/doublepost]
The main issue was not that they had 80% off market share, but that IE was installed on machines not manufactured by Microsoft. You cannot impose such things not on third-party hardware.
No, that's part of the issue. Because Windows had 80% of the marketshare, OEMs couldn't decide to ship an alternative to Windows. If there was an alternative, OEMs could say "see ya, I'm dumping you Microsoft".
Excerpt from the court document:
You’re proving my point. It was all about forcing hardware manufacturers to use something. Apple sells their software only and exclusively on their own vertically-integrated hardware.
Read that quote again and see how what I am saying makes sense.
Why does apple get to impose such things as where an iOS developer can sell his 3rd party app?
Something like Apple did exist before and probably still does. It was called the mob. They controlled many properties in big cities like New York. You could rent a property and pay them monthly like Apple does with the App store. The mob would also charge you a cut of your profits like Apple does with 30% tax. The mob would chalk up the extra charge to security just like Apple claims they are secure. The mob could look at your books and decide if they wanted to open up shop across the street if your business was successful just like Apple has access to all sorts of analytics and can decide to become direct competitors to top apps in their store. If the mob felt you were competition to them or you were making a stink about how unfair it was they would reduce their prices and raise their cut on your store, graffiti your store, throw garbage in the front of it, rob it a few times until the store owner had no other option but to close shop. At that point all the store owners customers belong to the mob and the mob has another space to rent. Same thing Apple does with apps that have complained about the tax or that they have started to compete against. Just drop them off he top ten, bury them so deep no one can find them, spin the story to make the other guy look greedy or like a cry baby, make your competing product cheaper and finally put the other app out of business. I wouldn't doubt it if Apple has corrupted some competitors apps to make them appear buggy so users will migrate away from them.
The mob is an illegal organization. Apple is a legal organization. That's not really a valid comparison. Finding similarities between two things doesn't imply equality. It only tells you those two things have some similarities. So I'd counter with, no, Apple is nothing like the mob, though you can find things in common to both if you look hard enough.
Apple does it already by offering tiny SSDs with their computers and expanding iPhone storage beyond what they're able to backup.
Your gaming platform analogy isn't the same and is garbage. Research contract and agreements between Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc. for game development. Manufacturer's only develop a game platform after they have agreements from a certain number of developers and games which will be offered before they commit to the cost involved. They take losses, typically for years on the hardware, before maybe seeing a profit. It is made up for in the game development because each are aware that without the hardware, there is not game, and vice versa. When is Apple going to take a loss on their hardware so that app developers will promise to produce software which helps to sell their product?
Whether they have a profit or loss on hardware sales is irrelevant. You completely miss the point.
"It was all about forcing hardware manufacturers to use something."
Name one cell phone manufacturer where Apple is explicitly forcing them to use something.
This is no different than Sony or Microsoft running their own game store on their own video game console. By your logic, EA should be able to run their own store on the Playstation and Epic Games should be able to run their own store on the Xbox console, right?
Hey, friend. Have you read all I’ve written? I’ve been replying to a rather insistent person that wants to classify Apple as wrong in this plaintiff.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Apple should not be required to open the platform as much as Nintendo or Sony should not be forced to as well.
sorry, i don't read post histories from users that mention me since that would take hours (i get about 4-5 new mentions every day here). i mistakenly thought you were talking about this the context of Apple.
No problem. I was making exactly the same argument as you are.
Apple builds their own hardware. That makes it completely different from Microsoft in the 90s and much closer to Nintendo exclusively setting the rules and having its store on the Switch.
Yes, last I checked Houston is in the USA. And here I thought Europeans knew geography.
BTW, thanks for the compliment that I must be American. Since America invented all the things you needed to post your opinion. You're welcome.
Last edited:
I don’t really see it the same. Customers can pay for Apple or competitors apps the same way, through the App Store. I am not sure what the stocked reference has to do it with it, you can download an app just as quickly from any developer without having to ask anyone for anything. Developers can offer subscriptions today, there is just a cost associated with it considering it’s Apple’s App Store. Maybe 30% is too high, but there should absolutely be a fee. I think the advantages of access to likely the most lucrative customers in the market is worth it. I guess I can see your point towards the end there, but I am not sure Apple has to play by the same rules as everyone on their platform. I’d imagine anyone in that position would likely do the same, but I can see how that doesn’t necessarily make it right. I guess we’ll see what the experts decide.
Do you think Nintendo is taking a loss on its hardware for years? lol. They'd be out of business by now. Love how all these haters try to convince themselves that anything Apple does is evil.
