all these companies piling on Apple store policies have one thing in common, they were quite happy with same policies when they were startups and existing off venture capital money.
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.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: Apple's App Store Blocks Innovation and Competition
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok, I've tried a few times to understand your point by asking you to name the market you think Apple has a monopoly in. You don't seem willing to just say: the market is X. This is a bit frustrating, because you've clearly thought through this but I can't know if we're actually looking at this the same way or not.
The AppStore is not a monopoly, it's a product. A product can't have a monopoly. A company can have a monopoly in a market. A market consists of products.
So, I'm just going to guess that the answer to the question I keep asking is "Apple has a monopoly on iPhone application sales portals". Apple is the firm. iPhone application sales portals is the market.
In other words, you believe it is illegal, or at least inappropriate, that Apple has a monopoly over the user experience of their own product?
Scoping the relevant market that narrowly seems a bit silly to me.
Beyond being silly, it doesn't have a lot of legal strength. For one, there's nothing about having a monopoly that demands legal intervention. Monopolies can be legally achieved, even through what might be considered aggressive business practices-- there are just some bright lines that can't be crossed.
One test of an illegal monopoly is whether a company abuses its monopoly power in one market to achieve monopoly power in another. What market would have Apple have to have abused to achieve an illegal monopoly in iOS application sales portals? It seems the chokepoint is iOS, so the market would need to be mobile operating systems. But we seem to agree that Apple doesn't have a monopoly in mobile operating systems, so they don't have monopoly power to abuse.
One test for a monopoly, generally, is whether customers will change products if prices are raised. Not every customer, but the marginal customer-- the ones closest to leaving already. There are plenty of customers willing to accept higher prices because they think Apple provides additional value to them so the question addresses customers at the boundary. If Apple raised the prices on the App Store, would anyone leave to go to Android? The answer is certainly yes-- we see people declaring so in these forums all the time. So, the economic test for a monopoly fails.
And, in fact, Apple doesn't charge any more than other similarly positioned application sales portals on other platforms.
Finally, it is really worth reading an overview of the Psystar case. It feels like you could just do a search and replace on MacOS and understand why there's no Apple monopoly in the AppStore:
Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims | AppleInsider
A California judge on Tuesday granted Apple's motion to dismiss counterclaims on the part of unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar, who charged the Mac maker with violating antitrust laws through its vigorous attempts to block third parties from selling rival Mac OS X-based computers.
appleinsider.com
Some relevant points from the ruling, as taken from the article:
- Apple responded to Psystar's argument by asserting that the company's definition of a market comprised of a single brand of a product is neither legally nor factually plausible. Judge Alsup agreed
- "The counterclaim itself explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems," he wrote. "The counterclaim admits that market studies indicate that, although Apple computers with Mac OS enjoy strong brand recognition and loyalty, they are not wholly lacking in competition."
- "vigorous advertising is a sign of competition, not a lack thereof. If Mac OS simply had no reasonable substitute, Apple's vigorous advertising would be wasted money. The advertising campaigns suggest a need to enhance brand recognition and lure consumers from a competitor."
- Apple makes it clear in courting its customers that they'll be locked into using the Mac OS only on Apple systems. "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."
Legality aside, is it desirable for Apple to hold full control over their platform? I don't see why not. If you put these arbitrary partitions between hardware, OS and tools, you make it impossible to innovate across those levels in more holistic ways-- and that is precisely the kind of innovation that Apple is known for.
There are two predominant system models out there-- iOS, which is closed and integrated from hardware to services, and Android which is open and disconnected with different companies providing different parts of the experience. This is quite similar to the Wintel/MacOS distiction. In fact, we tend to see this pattern recur in a number of different markets. And there's nothing to prevent other models and market entrants-- such as Linux coming in to further disrupt thinking in the OS market.
It is a competition of system views. Why would we want to extinguish that form of competition and force a single model on everyone?
And I'd recommend not thinking analogies such as Walmart/Target too far through. Analogies are useful to clarify a specific narrow point, but they always fall apart when examined too broadly or deeply and trying to force every market model into a canned set of analogies is too limiting.
Last edited:
Worst analogy. Installing a Diesel engine is like running Android on an iPhone. This is more like being allowed to wear clothes in your car you haven't bought at the maker's brand store, which only sells carefully curated outfits in outstanding quality and with matching color schemes.
I love it when people try making car comparisons. You are completely wrong in your analogy:
The proper car comparison would be:
"You buy a car [Apple Device] and want to put a different engine in it [Application]. You have a custom engine [Application] that would work but the car manufacturer [Apple] is preventing your mechanic from doing so because they have an enforcer armed with a baseball bat [App Store Reviewers] preventing your mechanic from installing [Alternate App Store] the different engine [App] for you."
-- FAA Certified aircraft mechanic, 9 years
Very well put together argument !Ok, I've tried a few times to understand your point by asking you to name the market you think Apple has a monopoly in. You don't seem willing to just say: the market is X. This is a bit frustrating, because you've clearly thought through this but I can't know if we're actually looking at this the same way or not.
The AppStore is not a monopoly, it's a product. A product can't have a monopoly. A company can have a monopoly in a market. A market consists of products.
So, I'm just going to guess that the answer to the question I keep asking is "Apple has a monopoly on iPhone application sales portals". Apple is the firm. iPhone application sales portals is the market.
In other words, you believe it is illegal, or at least inappropriate, that Apple has a monopoly over the user experience of their own product?
Scoping the relevant market that narrowly seems a bit silly to me.
Beyond being silly, it doesn't have a lot of legal strength. For one, there's nothing about having a monopoly that demands legal intervention. Monopolies can be legally achieved, even through what might be considered aggressive business practices-- there are just some bright lines that can't be crossed.
One test of an illegal monopoly is whether a company abuses its monopoly power in one market to achieve monopoly power in another. What market would have Apple have to have abused to achieve an illegal monopoly in iOS application sales portals? It seems the chokepoint is iOS, so the market would need to be mobile operating systems. But we seem to agree that Apple doesn't have a monopoly in mobile operating systems, so they don't have monopoly power to abuse.
One test for a monopoly, generally, is whether customers will change products if prices are raised. Not every customer, but the marginal customer-- the ones closest to leaving already. There are plenty of customers willing to accept higher prices because they think Apple provides additional value to them so the question addresses customers at the boundary. If Apple raised the prices on the App Store, would anyone leave to go to Android? The answer is certainly yes-- we see people declaring so in these forums all the time. So, the economic test for a monopoly fails.
And, in fact, Apple doesn't charge any more than other similarly positioned application sales portals on other platforms.
Finally, it is really worth reading an overview of the Psystar case. It feels like you could just do a search and replace on MacOS and understand why there's no Apple monopoly in the AppStore:
Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims | AppleInsider
A California judge on Tuesday granted Apple's motion to dismiss counterclaims on the part of unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar, who charged the Mac maker with violating antitrust laws through its vigorous attempts to block third parties from selling rival Mac OS X-based computers.
Some relevant points from the ruling, as taken from the article:
By trying to scope the market to only iOS application sales portals, you're ignoring the dependencies of the product structure. You're fixated on a user's inability to change app stores on their iPhone and forgetting that they have latitude one level up at the hardware level.
- Apple responded to Psystar's argument by asserting that the company's definition of a market comprised of a single brand of a product is neither legally nor factually plausible. Judge Alsup agreed
- "The counterclaim itself explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems," he wrote. "The counterclaim admits that market studies indicate that, although Apple computers with Mac OS enjoy strong brand recognition and loyalty, they are not wholly lacking in competition."
- "vigorous advertising is a sign of competition, not a lack thereof. If Mac OS simply had no reasonable substitute, Apple's vigorous advertising would be wasted money. The advertising campaigns suggest a need to enhance brand recognition and lure consumers from a competitor."
- Apple makes it clear in courting its customers that they'll be locked into using the Mac OS only on Apple systems. "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."
Legality aside, is it desirable for Apple to hold full control over their platform? I don't see why not. If you put these arbitrary partitions between hardware, OS and tools, you make it impossible to innovate across those levels in more holistic ways-- and that is precisely the kind of innovation that Apple is known for.
There are two predominant system models out there-- iOS, which is closed and integrated from hardware to services, and Android which is open and disconnected with different companies providing different parts of the experience. This is quite similar to the Wintel/MacOS distiction. In fact, we tend to see this pattern recur in a number of different markets. And there's nothing to prevent other models and market entrants-- such as Linux coming in to further disrupt thinking in the OS market.
It is a competition of system views. Why would we want to extinguish that form of competition and force a single model on everyone?
And I'd recommend not thinking analogies such as Walmart/Target too far through. Analogies are useful to clarify a specific narrow point, but they always fall apart when examined too broadly or deeply and trying to force every market model into a canned set of analogies is too limiting.
So you're defending Apple enforcing their ToS but you have a problem with Facebook making money when users agree to their ToS (which states how the user's data will be used)?
The mechanic is free to install any engine the customer wants into their car, but voids all warranties in doing so (Jailbreaking).
Or the customer is free to choose a Pre-built kit car which is designed to take any engine you want. Albeit with a bit of trouble and risk (Android Manufacturers own App Stores / Sideloading).
It's not up to any car manufacturer who is using their own proprietary mountings or engine design to make the mechanics life any easier.
But outside of some imaginary car that is built to work with proprietary software and charges for applications from any central repository, car analogies don't really work.
Betcha a John Deer would play the new fortnight season just as well as an iPhone 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
But I hear FarmVille on one is Better than VR
Maybe he should make his own tech company then. Ha ha ha.
In a company-wide meeting, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday referred to Apple's App Store as monopolistic and harmful to customers. Apple "blocks innovation, blocks competition," and uses the App Store to "charge monopoly rents."
The Facebook Gaming app on Android
Zuckerberg's comments, which were said to 50,000 Facebook employees over a webcast, were shared by BuzzFeed News. Apple, said Zuckerberg, has a "unique stranglehold as a gatekeeper on what gets on phones."
Facebook has been chafing at Apple's App Store rules after Apple blocked Facebook's gaming app, which launched earlier in August. Apple rejected Facebook Gaming multiple times because Apple does not allow apps that offer alternative stores with content that it cannot vet. Facebook launched the app without gameplay functionality, and it can be used to watch streams of other people playing games, which is its primary purpose.
Apple and Facebook also had another disagreement in August after Apple refused to waive fees for Facebook's paid Online Events feature. The Online Events option in the Facebook app is designed to allow small businesses and individuals to organize paid digital events that Facebook users can sign up for.
Facebook asked Apple to waive its 30 percent fee taken from the in-app purchases for Online Events or let Facebook process event payments with Facebook Pay, but Apple refused because that's a violation of its App Store guidelines.
Since Apple wouldn't waive its fees, Facebook intended to add a note in the Online Events feature that said "Apple takes 30% of this purchase." Apple took offense to the wording and did not allow Facebook to include the wording in the Facebook app. Apple said that the update violated an App Store rule that prevents developers from showing irrelevant information to users.
In addition to disagreements over the App Store, Zuckerberg is unhappy with changes that Apple is making in iOS 14. Facebook on Wednesday said that the anti-ad tracking feature Apple implemented that requires customers to agree to be tracked across apps and websites could cut down on 50 percent of the Audience Network Ad revenue companies earn through Facebook.
Zuckerberg also had thoughts on Apple's ongoing dispute with Epic Games, and said Apple's thwarted attempt to block the Unreal Engine was "just an extremely aggressive move" that was "quite problematic."
Both Apple and Facebook, along with Google and Amazon, are facing a U.S. antitrust investigation. The CEOs from the four companies in July testified in an antitrust hearing with the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee. The chairman of the subcommittee, David Cicilline, this week said that the four tech companies are "behavior which is deeply disturbing and requires Congress to take action."
Article Link: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: Apple's App Store Blocks Innovation and Competition
How did Microsoft get in trouble for the 90's Internet Explorer anti-trust case using your logic then?Ok, I've tried a few times to understand your point by asking you to name the market you think Apple has a monopoly in. You don't seem willing to just say: the market is X. This is a bit frustrating, because you've clearly thought through this but I can't know if we're actually looking at this the same way or not.
The AppStore is not a monopoly, it's a product. A product can't have a monopoly. A company can have a monopoly in a market. A market consists of products.
So, I'm just going to guess that the answer to the question I keep asking is "Apple has a monopoly on iPhone application sales portals". Apple is the firm. iPhone application sales portals is the market.
In other words, you believe it is illegal, or at least inappropriate, that Apple has a monopoly over the user experience of their own product?
Scoping the relevant market that narrowly seems a bit silly to me.
Beyond being silly, it doesn't have a lot of legal strength. For one, there's nothing about having a monopoly that demands legal intervention. Monopolies can be legally achieved, even through what might be considered aggressive business practices-- there are just some bright lines that can't be crossed.
One test of an illegal monopoly is whether a company abuses its monopoly power in one market to achieve monopoly power in another. What market would have Apple have to have abused to achieve an illegal monopoly in iOS application sales portals? It seems the chokepoint is iOS, so the market would need to be mobile operating systems. But we seem to agree that Apple doesn't have a monopoly in mobile operating systems, so they don't have monopoly power to abuse.
One test for a monopoly, generally, is whether customers will change products if prices are raised. Not every customer, but the marginal customer-- the ones closest to leaving already. There are plenty of customers willing to accept higher prices because they think Apple provides additional value to them so the question addresses customers at the boundary. If Apple raised the prices on the App Store, would anyone leave to go to Android? The answer is certainly yes-- we see people declaring so in these forums all the time. So, the economic test for a monopoly fails.
And, in fact, Apple doesn't charge any more than other similarly positioned application sales portals on other platforms.
Finally, it is really worth reading an overview of the Psystar case. It feels like you could just do a search and replace on MacOS and understand why there's no Apple monopoly in the AppStore:
Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims | AppleInsider
A California judge on Tuesday granted Apple's motion to dismiss counterclaims on the part of unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar, who charged the Mac maker with violating antitrust laws through its vigorous attempts to block third parties from selling rival Mac OS X-based computers.
Some relevant points from the ruling, as taken from the article:
By trying to scope the market to only iOS application sales portals, you're ignoring the dependencies of the product structure. You're fixated on a user's inability to change app stores on their iPhone and forgetting that they have latitude one level up at the hardware level.
- Apple responded to Psystar's argument by asserting that the company's definition of a market comprised of a single brand of a product is neither legally nor factually plausible. Judge Alsup agreed
- "The counterclaim itself explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems," he wrote. "The counterclaim admits that market studies indicate that, although Apple computers with Mac OS enjoy strong brand recognition and loyalty, they are not wholly lacking in competition."
- "vigorous advertising is a sign of competition, not a lack thereof. If Mac OS simply had no reasonable substitute, Apple's vigorous advertising would be wasted money. The advertising campaigns suggest a need to enhance brand recognition and lure consumers from a competitor."
- Apple makes it clear in courting its customers that they'll be locked into using the Mac OS only on Apple systems. "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."
Legality aside, is it desirable for Apple to hold full control over their platform? I don't see why not. If you put these arbitrary partitions between hardware, OS and tools, you make it impossible to innovate across those levels in more holistic ways-- and that is precisely the kind of innovation that Apple is known for.
There are two predominant system models out there-- iOS, which is closed and integrated from hardware to services, and Android which is open and disconnected with different companies providing different parts of the experience. This is quite similar to the Wintel/MacOS distiction. In fact, we tend to see this pattern recur in a number of different markets. And there's nothing to prevent other models and market entrants-- such as Linux coming in to further disrupt thinking in the OS market.
It is a competition of system views. Why would we want to extinguish that form of competition and force a single model on everyone?
And I'd recommend not thinking analogies such as Walmart/Target too far through. Analogies are useful to clarify a specific narrow point, but they always fall apart when examined too broadly or deeply and trying to force every market model into a canned set of analogies is too limiting.
Microsoft had a legal monopoly in PC operating systems. The relevant market was “worldwide licensing of Intel compatible PC operating systems”. This is not a single branded market— the IBM PC architecture was open and not owned by Microsoft. Microsoft was shown to have a 95% market share in that market.
Apple does not have a monopoly in any relevant market. The markets that Epic and others are trying to construct are single branded products and thus not relevant.
Among the things Microsoft got in trouble for were attempting to maintain their monopoly through the anti-competitive actions aimed at destroying middleware providers such as the Netscape browser and Java. Apple can’t illegally maintain a monopoly they don’t have.
They were also found guilty of attempting to gain a monopoly in the relevant market of internet browser software (a market they did not have a monopoly in previously) by tying Internet Explorer to Windows (in a market they did have monopoly power). Apple can’t illegally tie products to tying products in a market they don’t hold a monopoly in.
Microsoft also didn’t help themselves with talk of “embrace, extend, extinguish” and “cutting off Netscape’s air supply” by getting between them and their market. Microsoft also met with Netscape back in 1995 and suggested, under threat, that Netscape leave the market for 32bit windows software.
So it’s not just the fact that MS started making a browser. It was the fact that they had monopoly power in a market that was designed to be competitive, and took specific actions that would not be profit maximizing in a competitive market to undermine future competition against them and to obtain a monopoly in a second market designed to be competitive.
Smartphones are meant to be a competitive market, so if Apple had a monopoly share of that market there would be questions about whether they are maintaining it illegally and extending it to other markets (say, music streaming). iOS application sales portals is not a market designed for competition, it is a single branded market that Apple has made clear since it started is closed to iOS only.
@ArtOfWarfare, it's fine to broadly disagree with something, but I didn't make a simple one sentence statement of opinion that a simple thumbs down can refute. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you could point out what specifically you disagree with and why.
Ok, I've tried a few times to understand your point by asking you to name the market you think Apple has a monopoly in. You don't seem willing to just say: the market is X. This is a bit frustrating, because you've clearly thought through this but I can't know if we're actually looking at this the same way or not.
The AppStore is not a monopoly, it's a product. A product can't have a monopoly. A company can have a monopoly in a market. A market consists of products.
So, I'm just going to guess that the answer to the question I keep asking is "Apple has a monopoly on iPhone application sales portals". Apple is the firm. iPhone application sales portals is the market.
In other words, you believe it is illegal, or at least inappropriate, that Apple has a monopoly over the user experience of their own product?
Scoping the relevant market that narrowly seems a bit silly to me.
Beyond being silly, it doesn't have a lot of legal strength. For one, there's nothing about having a monopoly that demands legal intervention. Monopolies can be legally achieved, even through what might be considered aggressive business practices-- there are just some bright lines that can't be crossed.
One test of an illegal monopoly is whether a company abuses its monopoly power in one market to achieve monopoly power in another. What market would have Apple have to have abused to achieve an illegal monopoly in iOS application sales portals? It seems the chokepoint is iOS, so the market would need to be mobile operating systems. But we seem to agree that Apple doesn't have a monopoly in mobile operating systems, so they don't have monopoly power to abuse.
One test for a monopoly, generally, is whether customers will change products if prices are raised. Not every customer, but the marginal customer-- the ones closest to leaving already. There are plenty of customers willing to accept higher prices because they think Apple provides additional value to them so the question addresses customers at the boundary. If Apple raised the prices on the App Store, would anyone leave to go to Android? The answer is certainly yes-- we see people declaring so in these forums all the time. So, the economic test for a monopoly fails.
And, in fact, Apple doesn't charge any more than other similarly positioned application sales portals on other platforms.
Finally, it is really worth reading an overview of the Psystar case. It feels like you could just do a search and replace on MacOS and understand why there's no Apple monopoly in the AppStore:
Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims | AppleInsider
A California judge on Tuesday granted Apple's motion to dismiss counterclaims on the part of unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar, who charged the Mac maker with violating antitrust laws through its vigorous attempts to block third parties from selling rival Mac OS X-based computers.
Some relevant points from the ruling, as taken from the article:
By trying to scope the market to only iOS application sales portals, you're ignoring the dependencies of the product structure. You're fixated on a user's inability to change app stores on their iPhone and forgetting that they have latitude one level up at the hardware level.
- Apple responded to Psystar's argument by asserting that the company's definition of a market comprised of a single brand of a product is neither legally nor factually plausible. Judge Alsup agreed
- "The counterclaim itself explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems," he wrote. "The counterclaim admits that market studies indicate that, although Apple computers with Mac OS enjoy strong brand recognition and loyalty, they are not wholly lacking in competition."
- "vigorous advertising is a sign of competition, not a lack thereof. If Mac OS simply had no reasonable substitute, Apple's vigorous advertising would be wasted money. The advertising campaigns suggest a need to enhance brand recognition and lure consumers from a competitor."
- Apple makes it clear in courting its customers that they'll be locked into using the Mac OS only on Apple systems. "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."
Legality aside, is it desirable for Apple to hold full control over their platform? I don't see why not. If you put these arbitrary partitions between hardware, OS and tools, you make it impossible to innovate across those levels in more holistic ways-- and that is precisely the kind of innovation that Apple is known for.
There are two predominant system models out there-- iOS, which is closed and integrated from hardware to services, and Android which is open and disconnected with different companies providing different parts of the experience. This is quite similar to the Wintel/MacOS distiction. In fact, we tend to see this pattern recur in a number of different markets. And there's nothing to prevent other models and market entrants-- such as Linux coming in to further disrupt thinking in the OS market.
It is a competition of system views. Why would we want to extinguish that form of competition and force a single model on everyone?
And I'd recommend not thinking analogies such as Walmart/Target too far through. Analogies are useful to clarify a specific narrow point, but they always fall apart when examined too broadly or deeply and trying to force every market model into a canned set of analogies is too limiting.
No. It’s called “fair” approach. You have to have proof and listen to both sides of a story. I was being careful and not presumptive.
No they weren't. They just weren't in a position to negotiate a reasonable contract. Now they are.
Kinda, but not really. As you can get another mechanic to install a third party engine (jailbreak/cydia) currently.
The thing is some folks want the car manufacturer to make it easy to swap the engine and not void the warranty.
Oh, and they also want the car manufacturer to provide a taxi ride to get to the mechanic that will install the custom engine.
And anyone comparing an App to an oil change that can be done at home or garage of choice rather than pay the extortionate fees from authorized service centers, obviously hasn't dealt with some manufacturers policies regarding in-warranty routine maintenance.
Well, by the time you go to court, you’re not really in a position to negotiate anymore. Negotiation would have been “before” breaking the rules. When I want to negotiate a raise, I don’t start by stealing IP and threatening to sell it
By now, it’s either win or lose. And, if you lose, the winner’s very likely no longer willing to go to the negotiating table again. I mean, last time they broke the rules so they’re likely to do so again.