People are using computer vs cell phone to justify a point of view. The point is how many would buy these device without the capacity to make any sort of call. Forget any sort of call, any call in a cellular network.
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.
Elon Musk Says Apple's 30% App Store Fee is 'Literally 10 Times Higher Than It Should Be'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The point is not that at all. How many would buy the iPhone if not for everything else? No one.
Everything else is the flex of an Apple computer in the pocket. If it was not for this feature any $30 device would do. How can $30 abilities justify the $400 ... $1700? It could not. These prices are justified because the capacities of a computer in the pocket are fundamental to its nature ... it makes no sense to argue otherwise.
Last edited:
Obviously good answers but nobody can really know the answer. Only guesses from biased opinions.
I stated it doesn't necessarily matter.
Again, share is typically tied to country or continent where a case is being argued. Anything over 50% share (iOS share in the U.S. is around 58%) is usually sufficient to be declared a monopoly.
By not allowing alternative app stores, Apple is forcing developers to pay 30% commission in order to sell their products on dominant iOS. If 30% is viewed to be an exorbitant amount, it could justify a potential case that Apple is using its monopoly power to overcharge app developers.
Factually, from an engineering perspective I don't see any bias on ascertain that is kind of computer in the pocket. Much like a Tablet is a kind of computer. That is a fact not an opinion.
Computer - Wikipedia
Your choice of the word "opinion" comes from your personal bias to dodge any kind of rational that may lead to regulatory measures, not engineering facts.
Last edited:
Talking about the App Store bud. The Apple App Store is also the golden market for devs, since Apple users spend more money and create more revenue for developers. The question isn’t whether or not devs can make money on the App Store (they can), but rather is the cut they are getting fair or abusive.
In the US the app store model has not been found to be anti-competitive or abusive. Now given apple operates globally different locales may have different opinions.
Maybe or maybe not. I’m not debating governments can enact laws subject to the governing environment, but it seems these laws are targeting apple, but couching terminology in order not to get this ridiculous legislation thrown out in court.
And yes apple has a monopoly on the App Store the same as Costco has a monopoly on its warehouses.
They are "targeting" companies that have significant share of their respective markets, which is what antitrust lawns are meant to focus on.
It's not the same. Apple's monoply is related to their dominant share of the mobile OS market which thereby gives them dominant control of (and ability to use monoply power in) the mobile app sales market. Costco doesn't have a monoply in the market(s) they compete in.
It depends. In the U.S., for example, iOS has around 58% share of the mobile OS market while Android has around 42%.
Anti-trust is different across all locales, which is why in the US the government is trying for force apple to open up it's infrastructure. We'll see if that succeeds.
There is no monopoly. People keep saying that. Apple has a monopoly on it's own products, which is legal (at least in the US). Costco has a monopoly on it's warehouses and it's sole discretion allows what is sold there. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on apps either. For example the WSJ app is available on more than one platform.
However, Tesla does charge a higher fee for non-Tesla vehicles and it appears only three non-Tesla EVs are compatible with the CCS connector: BMW i3, Kia e-Niro, and Jaguar I-Pace.
So still a walled garden, IMO, even if they have allowed three non-Tesla models the access code for the gate (for a price).
Telsa moved from there
CCS is an open standard - so it's up to the companies to adopt it which they are BMW, Daimler, FCA, Ford, Jaguar, General Motors, Groupe PSA, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, MG, Polestar, Renault, Rivian, Tesla, Tata Motors and Volkswagen Group Are all on or moving to CCS.
If the Chargers are CCS how is that a walled garden. It's like saying HDMI is a walled garden because I can't plug in a SCART.
CCS is a much better faster standard than CHAdeMO . 350KW vs 50KW.
The prices are inline with other places like Ionity and far cheaper than others.
This is not really about caring what Musk thinks. People have had opinions about the 30% fee long before Musk's statement. This article/topic simply opened the door to discuss and debate these already existing opinions……
and to allow some to criticize Musk for other things.
That's kind of like saying Microsoft didn't have a monopoly because Windows was its own product but that's not how monopoly designations work.
The reality was Microsoft had a desktop OS monopoly (at least in some regions) just as Apple has a mobile OS monopoly (at least in some regions) and the issue comes down to how they potentially use their monopoly power in their respective markets to stifle competition. In the case of Microsoft, they tried to use it to stifle browser competition in the desktop OS market. In the case of Apple, one could argue that they use it to stifle app store competition in the mobile OS market. Not including alternative app stores and preventing end users from installing alternative app stores thereby can force app developers to use Apple's App Store to access around 58% of the mobile OS market.
Unlike Microsoft and Apple, Costco doesn't have a monopoly nor monopoly power to force manufacturers to sell through them to access some sort of dominant portion of the retail store market. Costco doesn't have control of a dominant portion of the retail store market.
Honestly, I can't debate the legal nuances monopolies. All I know is that Apple has not been found to be anti-competitive or monopolistic.
Microsoft had a legal monopoly, because there was no barriers to entry other than popularism.
Yes, there are laws governing how businesses operate.
They paid off computer manufacturers.
It's been argued unsuccessfully.
One can try, but what Apple does is legal.
Neither does Apple. A dev who doesn't like Apple can jump ship to either google or other alternative app stores.
Neither does apple.
In what way was Microsoft found guilty of "pay offs" to computer makers in relation to the 1990s antitrust case?
Apple controls around 58% of the U.S. mobile OS market in which mobile apps are offered/sold through an app store. They therefore do control a dominant portion of that market. Costco doesn't control anywhere near 58% of the market in which retail store goods (or however Costco's market or markets are defined) are sold.
There is no Ship as far as digital services are concerned. The notion of Ship is mostly the way you see things.
The reality is that businesses in general have customers and their customers choose the device they want to use to access the Internet. Meaning, to service their customers they need to be present in the devices their customer choose.
As it happens, to service their customers the best way possible, the market has one device supplier (Apple) that asks digital business to share 30% of the revenue generated in their App for this matter. Worst, we have another, Google that also aims the same thing ... and another called Amazon ... the practice is spreading.
Last edited:
In the US, you have to talk about significant and durable market power. The applicable market for Apple would be the smartphone market where Apple's market share is around 50%. They don't compete in a mobile OS market.
For more information, you can read the FTC's definition of monopolization.
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
The smarthphone market is clearly competitive. And Apple doesn't engage in any exclusionary or predatory acts within that market.
To get back to an earlier point, this isn't about Apple doing anything wrong. It's simply about regulation. A few large corporations are simply pushing a campaign labeling it as abuse to pressure regulators to give them a piece of Apple's pie.
Apple competes in the mobile OS market too. When someone buys an iPhone or Pod, Apple is also selling them iOS (license). Apple produces both products and just because the items are at least initially (future IOS updates/versions are offered later) packaged together doesn't mean Apple doesn't compete in both the smartphone and mobile OS markets.
Apple also currently competes in the browser market with Safari even though it comes packaged with iOS or macOS and future versions require iOS or macOS. However, Apple is not as controlling or restrictive with browser competition as they are with the app store since they allow other browsers (or at least browser "skins") on the platforms.
That's not how antitrust works in the US. Again, feel free to read the information that I linked to on the FTC website. iOS is a feature of the iPhone. It's not a separate product.Correct! That's why it's offered as a separate product.
There are more ships and more ports.
So you are saying a business makes a choice as to how to service their customers digitally. Nobody is holding a gun to the ceos head?
Think there is some conflation between having to choose from a choice of one from a bonafide monopoly to multiple ways to digitally reach out to customers.