Also, to all w/ this argument still going on free choice, capitalism, etc. To me the basis of the argument is clear, ask yourself whether WalMart should be compelled to shelve goods w/o zero incentive to do so? Or any other store? If you answer yes, feel free to point towards other economic systems in existence (or historically) where this worked out?
Epic: Fortnite Offline Worldwide 'Until Apple Unblocks It'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bad analogy as the ISPs are paid by their customers to provide services. The better analogy is to go back to how software was delivered before the App Store, primarily through retail stores through physical media. What does Best Buy or other shops charge to sell products through their stores?
Let me fix it for you: These are Epic's sales coming from Epic's intellectual property built on top of Apple's intellectual property*
Sounds like the original poster does not realize you cannot purchase a smartphone without an operating system installed. You can custom build personal computers, but not smartphones. Of course they would be able to if they could build all of the components in the smartphone. There have been people that have tried and failed because not enough people were interested in their products. Microsoft failed with Windows Phone due to the lack of continued interest in the Windows Phone.
Most companies do not pursue profit above all else. They have to make a profit in order to continue to survive and innovate. Research and design is very costly and requires profits in order to pursue.This occurs when we pursue profit above all else.
LOL.....man this is a rabbit hole I don't know I want to go down in an online forum 🤣 I think we both agree on the major stuff
People can choose a better search engine than Google by changing the setting. I do not use Google's search service or any other service because I have changed the default. Most people do not the technology they use therefore never go and change the default settings. This is literally the first setting that I change when setting up a brand new computer. Thankfully when I replace my devices my default preferences are preserved and I have yet to ever need to change them.
Google relied on marketing deals that installed Chrome along with other software like Adobe Reader. This is how Google Chrome was installed in the beginning and people just let it highjack their computers because they just really did not understand that Google forced Google Chrome upon them.
And Microsoft Windows does not have 90% of desktop operating system marketshare. Of course you do have to wonder about the 65% (US) and 75% (worldwide) marketshare is accurate because many of the technical people who use either Linux or Macintosh use virtual machines to host a Windows instance in order to use those things that require Windows to accomplish. I use virtualization on my Macintosh to provide access to Windows (for testing) and Linux (for Cybersecurity tools) so that I have one universal computer.
That just indicates how lazy many people are. Or maybe just technical illiterate. Of course some of the issue lies in the fact that people who taught them to use the computers have a preference for one platform or the other. While I have my preferences, I do attempt to help people using other platforms that I have decided against. It is not easy to support them and I do my best effort, but I will not purchase platforms that do not meet my needs.
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
Might even argue windows and Mac is also the same thing. So actually there’s just one single os. Windows, iOS, Mac, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, steamdeck, Linux etc are all a singular thing. Heck bank automats run windows even.
That’s quite the monopoly we have 🤔.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
You're arguing semantics.
Irrelevant, when the main argument is the (lack of) choice of ecosystems. Most notable app ecosystems. The most important decision for the average customer is between two different operating systems. You don't go into a smartphone store and have the sales clerks tell you (regarding software) "oh, we've got half a dozen operating systems to choose from" - when five of them are slight variations of Android, and one is iOS.
Nitpick semantics all you want - it's between Android and iOS. That is the main choice in software.
Arsenikdote
macrumors 6502a
Most in the context of actual real numbers of businesses, I agree. Most in the context of large enterprise businesses in most developed countries, I disagree. While some of this is opinion, I also have a LOT of first hand experience. I have not only built multiple businesses of multiple sizes, I have also worked directly with the executive suite of many large businesses in many countries. The idea of innovation to survive is also something that rarely exits in most businesses and hasn't existed since the early 2000's. Most business segments it is about funding and little else. You purchase your way to the top/sell to one of those rising to the top, or you are run out of business. Little by little we have been headed this way for decades and the rate of this is almost exponential now. For example, the portfolio size of SME loans from most banks has decreased by nearly 75% since the 90's. SMB has grown dramatically as population and opportunities have risen, but just as the wealth gap has increased, so has the gap in businesses. SMB fills a void or grows to SME size to get swallowed up or run out. There used to be space for large SMB and small SME, but not anymore. Those are the true businesses that pose threat to the profits of the larger SME's above them. Rather than competing, they are taken out (one way or another) to protect profits.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
So?
Spotify and Netflix (and Epic Sweden) are customers for Apple's App Store services.
And they pay them the $99 yearly developer fee.
👉 No different. I stand by my analogy.
The only difference: ISPs do not double-dip on Apple's revenue. And they do not engage in actively blocking or contractually prohibiting traffic from Apple's network in the absence of a 30% toll to be paid.
Brick & mortar stores didn't distribute them on commission.
Also, they stocked, displayed the software on shelves and delivered it.
Does Apple store or deliver Spotify's music library?
No, they don't!
No. These digital items have been created (presumably) without Apple's tools. And they "run" on all kinds of platforms. iOS is one of them - but it's certainly not required for that content.
Again: Is Apple
surferfb
Contributor
ISPs and other utilities are a bad example because they are actually geographic monopolies where consumers actually only have one option.
Not "I have two options but I don't want to use Android so let's use government to make Apple do what I want and turn it into a more attractive version of Android" but actually "you have one option. Take it or leave it." That necessitates regulation.
I'd argue that forcing Apple to open up actually turns the mobile space into an actual monopoly, because those of us who want a closed ecosystem lose that option.
Not "I have two options but I don't want to use Android so let's use government to make Apple do what I want and turn it into a more attractive version of Android" but actually "you have one option. Take it or leave it." That necessitates regulation.
I'd argue that forcing Apple to open up actually turns the mobile space into an actual monopoly, because those of us who want a closed ecosystem lose that option.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
No - they're a very good example, because whatever the reason (geographic monopoly or network and lock-in effects as in software) they've got similar monopoly power and control access to consumers for a large variety of products/services/the customer relationship.
👉 Also, the very same argument can be claimed: "But they spent so many billions on infrastructure, and someone else (i.e. Apple) depends on their service - that's why they deserve a share of that someone else's revenue."
There may even be a second operator on the market.
Which may have very similar terms and conditions.
In which the same old "arguments" might be brought forward:
- "If you don't like it, just switch to the other ISP"
- "You knew what you were getting into when signing up".
- "Create their own infrastructure. Apple can lay their own cable to customers!"
Last edited:
LoL....Does Apple deliver spotify's music library? Yeah through harware and software they develop. What world do you live in where you think Spotify could run on an iPhone w/o Apple spending money on software development? Spotify's app cannot run on Apple Devices w/o Apple developing the hardware and iOS. And you live in a world in which you think Apple should subsidize their software development through hardware sales, which is backwards from how the industry has historically worked.
AppliedMicro
macrumors 68040
You have a weird definition of "delivery", considering Apple neither licensed the music nor paid for the content delivery network and traffic.
👉 It's like saying "Ford or General Motors deliver my packages" instead of Fedex, UPS or the United States Postal Service.
I mean... there's no denying that Fedex, UPS and USPS deliver packages "using hardware" developed by Ford, GM, is there? Right? Right? So does the delivery vehicle manufacturer deserve a 30% commission on all delivery fee revenue?
Last edited:
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
Who would be the monopoly? If iOS is opened up it doesn’t magically makes company x a monopoly. iOS/ Android doesn’t spontaneously become a new thing.
iOS being open doesn’t make it Android. The code base, APIs etc will still stay just as distinct.
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
surferfb
Contributor
If you guys get to say Apple is a monopoly for months and months despite having a competitor with 40% greater market share, then I get to say the government is creating a monopoly here 🤣
It's the government picking winners and losers. "You can't have a closed ecosystem because we don't like it".
However one of the platform's primary selling features is taken away. Remember when everyone told Apple they were doomed for not opening up? Turns out a lot of customers like the closed ecosystem! It's a feature of Apple's success!
No one has ever satisfactorily explained why consumers who want a closed ecosystem shouldn't be allowed to have that option and instead those who want an open ecosystem should get two to choose from.
I do not think that you are correct. Why would Best Buy or other retailer provide shelf space for products and hire employees for no money. With that, all retailers would go broke immediately. Your analogy does not work. You need to use Xcode to develop software for macOS, iOS, and the other derivatives of macOS. Apple also reviews applications to ensure that they contain malware, either automated or through an employee reviewing the code. It costs money to provide that review. There are costs associated with providing those services. You are ignoring the fundamental base that it requires costs associated with providing access to the App Store. Whether or not the 30% or 15% is still justified that would all come down to the costs associated with the services provided.
Arsenikdote
macrumors 6502a
At a core level I understand the point you are trying to make with "choice" and I don't think that is incorrect. However, you are changing from the point that Apple AND Google are creating a situation in which software developers don't have a choice but to play by the duopoly rules. THIS is more to the point that others are making. Sure "you" can pick as a consumer which ecosystem you enjoy more, but you don't get to pick as a developer or as a consumer (dealing with pricing) the situation the two companies have created in the industry.
I think those others trying to make the point are not well informed, nor entrepreneurs, so they are missing a LOT of complexity in the situation. They are missing that businesses should be able to build things and reap the rewards without the government dictating how they operate. However, conversely, with the way capitalism works in the United States, most businesses protect themselves at the cost of competition and so then invite the government to get involved as to not allow monopolistic behavior. Very tough situation for both sides IMO.
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
no winner and losers are picked tho. iOS might still win, Android might win. The iOS AppStore might maintain 99.9% of its apps or 0% of their apps.
people on my side might argue Apple is a monopoly in a limited sense such as the iOS application market share or iPhone os market share , but that doesn’t make your monopoly claim make any sense just how saying iPhones having a smartphone monopoly doesn’t mean anything.
Perhaps Apple can sell the AppStore exclusivity package. Just like the Macappstore or the windows store.
Probably because it’s little to do with consumer as the anticompetitive approach Apple does towards large submarkets instead of allowing competition with the services.
I would say it like this:
You having the ability to purchase any ISP services irrespective of who owns the cable infrastructure to your house is good for consumers and the market instead of only the cable operator being allowed to sell thrown services and prevent any competition from offering competitive services.
Edit: I have never argued Apple is a monopoly nor have I ever argued it’s bad to be a monopoly. I have only stated they might do anticompetitive practices, have a dominant market position etc