Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg: Apple's App Store Blocks Innovation and Competition

[rwxx]

Apple has proven their trustworthy. Let them be in charge of developers. They are keeping them from accessing more data. And that's a good thing.

Except when they're not. I have friends in the valley who work in the privacy space and they all laugh at the idea that Apple is protecting your privacy. Sure, Apple themselves aren't data mining and spying on you, but they allow tons of apps into the App Store that do just that, many of which are far more egregious than anything Google does, for example. If Apple REALLY cared about privacy, they'd forbid all kinds of activity that goes on in third party apps today, but they won't because they know developers will flee the platform.

LOL. You just proved my point. THAT WAS DEVELOPERS DOING THAT!

For sure, and "trustworthy" Apple let it go on for who knows how long. Saying that most developers can't be trusted is a ridiculous and offensive generalization. Would you say the same thing about people of a certain race? Or people who work other types of jobs? Of course some developers are shady. Some people are shady. But to generalize all people of a certain group is pretty low and disgusting. There are millions of App Store developers. A small percentage of them were clipboard snooping. That is hardly "most".

 

[Smoovejayy]

If Apple where a bricks and mortar department store, who decided no to stock any Zuckerberg products- would we be having this argument?

My store, my rules. You don't pay rent, but we take a percentage of your returns as remuneration.

This.

 

[dazz87]

In a few years......Facebook and Epics games only available on android phones..............

 

[QCassidy352]

If you were right, then it wouldn't be an issue, and we wouldn't be reading about it in MacRumors every day, and it wouldn't be under US senate review, and governments and companies and people all around the world wouldn't be blowing up about Apple's monopolistic practices.

At the end of the day, businesses only get to operate in our country according to the rules WE decide. WE-the-people vote in the government, who represent us and make the laws, including anti-monopolistic laws to protect us from being ripped off from monopolistic practices. So the definition of what defines a monopoly, is actually, ultimately, whatever we-the-people decide it is.

And right now, there is a massive debate and uproar about Apple's business practices, and whether or not they are monopolistic, and if and how they should be contained. Personally, I would be surprised if nothing changes, but I guess we will see.

"Monopoly" is a diction-defined term:

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Any business can be a "monopoly" if you define the relevant market narrowly enough. For example, BMW has a "monopoly" on car sales that take place inside BMW dealerships. But we'd all agree that the "market" in that context should be broader than BMW showrooms, right?

Same principle here. Apple can only be a "monopoly" if the relevant marketplace is defined as the iOS platform. But that's a stupidly narrow definition for market in this context.

Now, to your point, Apple may yet be found to be in violation of anti-trust laws. But they aren't a monopoly by any meaningful definition of that term.

 

[4jasontv]

Except when they're not. I have friends in the valley who work in the privacy space and they all laugh at the idea that Apple is protecting your privacy. Sure, Apple themselves aren't data mining and spying on you, but they allow tons of apps into the App Store that do just that, many of which are far more egregious than anything Google does, for example. If Apple REALLY cared about privacy, they'd forbid all kinds of activity that goes on in third party apps today, but they won't because they know developers will flee the platform.



For sure, and "trustworthy" Apple let it go on for who knows how long. Saying that most developers can't be trusted is a ridiculous and offensive generalization. Would you say the same thing about people of a certain race? Or people who work other types of jobs? Of course some developers are shady. Some people are shady. But to generalize all people of a certain group is pretty low and disgusting. There are millions of App Store developers. A small percentage of them were clipboard snooping. That is hardly "most".

Keep listing examples that defend my point.

 

[kesennnnn]

Nobody asked Facebook to chime in.

 

[Abazigal]

In a few years......Facebook and Epics games only available on android phones..............

And nothing of value was lost on the ios platform.

 

[falainber]

If Apple where a bricks and mortar department store, who decided no to stock any Zuckerberg products- would we be having this argument?

My store, my rules. You don't pay rent, but we take a percentage of your returns as remuneration.

Another flawed analogy from AAPL fan. If you refuse to sell a product in your store, another store might. As an iPhone owner, where is this other store that can sell me the app I want?

 

[MacBH928]

Facebook blocks simple human rights and abuses people's right to privacy by giving them the impression that their data is secure and safe, meanwhile its sold to the highest bidder like cattle.

I am really happy everyone woke up to see Facebook and Zuck for what they truly are over mesmerising on his beautiful success story in The Social Netowrk.

 

[Analog Kid]

Apple is not a monopoly. Apple has a monopoly over software installation on its platform, a HUGE platform with over 1 billion active devices. Hence the scrutiny.

Back in the 90s, the fact that alternatives to the PC existed wasn't material. The issue was Microsoft using its control of PC operating systems to unfairly disadvantage others. That's pretty much the same situation we have with Apple and the App Store today. The fact that you can buy an Android has as much relevance today as the fact that you could go buy a Mac back in the 90s. It's not about other platforms.

People keep kind of avoiding naming the market, and I think it’s because it sounds so silly when you actually do... Are you trying to say Apple has a monopoly on the iOS software installation market? They have a monopoly within the confines of their own product?

Apple has already referenced existing case law declaring that single branded products do not represent relevant anti-trust markets, and they’ve already prevailed in that argument against Psystar on Macs.

Should any consideration be given to the fact that the market you’re trying to define is in fact a product that itself is part of a competitive market? Mobile devices is a fiercely competitive market, and iPhone is only one product in that market?

The fact that alternatives existed to PC operating systems wasn’t relevant for a few reasons. One is that the PC wasn’t Microsoft’s product, Windows was. Another was that those alternatives held less than 10% market share. Even given all of that, Microsoft‘s operating system monopoly was not a problem in itself. In fact, even the more aggressive recommendation to break Microsoft up assumed that the OS business would remain intact.

The fact that you can buy an Android device today has exactly the opposite relevance today as that you could buy a Mac back then. Android has 85% global market share, Mac’s had about 5% share in the 90’s. In other words, iOS today is essentially the Mac of the early 90’s.

It is not only about other platforms, but it is also about the fact that there is little preventing even more platforms from coming to market.

Again, it's not about the OS. It's about the App Store and whether a single entity should have a complete monopoly over what happens on its platform. This is not an Apple issue. Other App Stores and platforms have similar restrictions (ie: Playstation, Nintendo). Apple is the most visible target, but I'm sure things won't stop here if Apple loses this fight.

What exactly constitutes a platform? Are you saying that government should intervene to prevent a company from controlling the user experience on its own products?

It sounds like you think all of the value in a product should only derive from 3rd party contributions to that product?

What you are advocating is forced commoditization of every piece of hardware. Why would someone bother making anything of quality if there’s no money in it?

 

[mi7chy]

You have choice. Buy a different device. You are not "forced" to buy an Apple device.

I see like buying a microwave and then complaining that it doesn't wash my dishes.

Buy the device that meets your needs. Consumers have lots of choice.

Fanboy logic doesn't apply to FTC antitrust laws. Read and learn.

https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do

PROTECTING CONSUMERS
The FTC protects consumers by stopping unfair, deceptive or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. We conduct investigations, sue companies and people that violate the law, develop rules to ensure a vibrant marketplace, and educate consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. We collect complaints about hundreds of issues from data security and deceptive advertising to identity theft and Do Not Call violations, and make them available to law enforcement agencies worldwide for follow-up. Our experienced and motivated staff uses 21st century tools to anticipate – and respond to – changes in the marketplace.

PROMOTING COMPETITION
Competition in America is about price, selection, and service. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of goods and services high. By enforcing antitrust laws, the FTC helps ensure that our markets are open and free. The FTC will challenge anticompetitive mergers and business practices that could harm consumers by resulting in higher prices, lower quality, fewer choices, or reduced rates of innovation. We monitor business practices, review potential mergers, and challenge them when appropriate to ensure that the market works according to consumer preferences, not illegal practices.

 

[Analog Kid]

I think it was less about the browsers market (sales of the software) and more about the control of the gateway to the service (the internet), Facebook has dominance in my view of the product (social media) which is the gateway to the service (consumer data / advertising)

Monopolies are defined by market power.

The internet has many gateways. Email, gopher, etc. Browsers are products that give access to the protocols that form the World Wide Web. The web was seen as important because, at the time, Netscape was talking about the web being the new OS— being able to run applications on the internet regardless of the desktop OS. They were threatening to make Windows irrelevant.

Whether they had the power or the technology to do that at the time, we see today that it wasn’t a crazy idea as web apps are everywhere now. Microsofts answer was to make sure IE dominated the browser market so no one could use it against Windows.

They abused their power in one market to gain power in another.

Facebook competes in the social media market, along with Twitter, Microsoft/LinkedIn, TikTok, Google/YouTube, etc, etc. Just as importantly, there is very little barrier to entry for a new competitor to arise. Look how quickly MySpace fell.

Facebook has plenty of competition. They’re not a monopoly.

 

[jarman92]

Yes, FB and Zuckerberg are horrible. That doesn't excuse Apple to be horrible too. Captain Crook and Zuckerberg are two peas in a pod in my book.

Well, Cook is terrible in that he’s greedy. Zuckerberg is terrible in that his company facilitates racism, violence, and genocide. Not quite equivalent 😅

 

[Commodore 64]

Just a thought, will Epic allow other developers on their App Store? If so at what markup? And not to get all inception on this but would epic allow another App Store within their AppStore that they expect Apple to administer within the AppStore ? Just saying.

WOW! That’s deep😳. Does anyone know if this has ever been done before? On Google Play or other? Who paid how much to whom?

... and wouldn’t it only be all inception if the app store within the app store on the App Store would enable side loading?🤯

 

[Unregistered 4U]

With regards to Facebooks 'Online Events feature' which is to help small businesses during the virus pandemic and that Facebook said it will absorb ALL the costs to host the events

Sooo, they could have just kicked in an extra 30%. You know, if they’re doing this out of the goodness/kindness of their hearts.

If Apple kept on adding big players to its banned list

There has been ONE added. Primarily, because it went against the Terms of Use being on the App Store. I doubt that many(any) other companies are going to do so intentionally, so the fear of the “banned” list growing is nonexistant.

If you were right, then it wouldn't be an issue, and we wouldn't be reading about it in MacRumors every day, and it wouldn't be under US senate review, and governments and companies and people all around the world wouldn't be blowing up about Apple's monopolistic practices.

No, they’re right, it’s an issue because people WANT it to be an issue. Apple’s not a monopoly in any useful sense, but there’s a large number of people that want to see Apple “taken down” SOOO bad, they’re looking at a situation where a developer intentionally put themselves out of compliance and ignoring it.

If Apple just yanked an app just because they felt like it one day, perhaps just because the company’s CEO scuffed Tim Apple’s shoes, then yeah, that’s a pitchforkable offense. Otherwise, there’s just a lot of folks with pitchforks with “Apple“ written on them that are just enjoying the ability to blow off the dust bunnies and wave them around vigorously for a bit

And why does everyone think its ok we can only install apps from the seller of a devices through an app store?

EVERYONE doesn’t think it’s ok. ONLY the folks that have been buying iPhones from day 1 understanding that those were the limitations. There’s a LOT of folks that don’t think it’s ok. The majority of those own Android devices. I would imagine there’s a few that own iPhone devices that they jailbreak. BUT, to even buy into the hardware EVEN if you’re jailbreaking it still sends the message to Apple that “this is the product I want you to continue to make”. So they do.

But we'd all agree that the "market" in that context should be broader than BMW showrooms, right?

People keep kind of avoiding naming the market, and I think it’s because it sounds so silly when you actually do... Are you trying to say Apple has a monopoly on the iOS software installation market? They have a monopoly within the confines of their own product?

Pretty much. As I’ve said: if, in defining a monopoly, you are required to use a company’s trademarked product name IN that definition, you’re not talking about a monopoly, you’re talking about a company’s product. Apple CAN have a monopoly in smartphones, they can’t have a monopoly on Final Cut Pro X. They could POTENTIALLY have a monopoly on “Video editors that retail for less than $300, but more than $298“. That doesn’t use any of Apple’s trademarked product names buuuuuuuut, that’s silly

 

[macsimcon]

Fanboy logic doesn't apply to FTC antitrust laws. Read and learn.

What are you talking about? Should the FTC make Betamax play in my VHS player? How about making Android apps run on my iPhone? There is competition in the mobile hardware space, and it would be nice if we had more than two players making software platforms for mobile, but Microsoft, Blackberry, and Palm couldn't prosper in the market.

It's not the job of the FTC to pick winners and losers, or to force one platform to support another's software. Should the FTC make T-Mobile's phones work on AT&T's network? Should Universal have rights to Paramount's movies? Should Dish have to share it's satellites with DirecTV?

I'm sorry that you are unable to set your own terms, but all you have to do is create a hardware and software platform of your very own with worldwide dominance and you can do whatever you want. Until then, you can choose Android or iOS.

 

[macsimcon]

Well, Cook is terrible in that he’s greedy. Zuckerberg is terrible in that his company facilitates racism, violence, and genocide. Not quite equivalent 😅

I'll take a greedy socially-conscious businessman over a stone-cold sociopath any day.

 

[Commodore 64]

According to the user agreement all iPhone users (after the return period) have agreed that they own the hardware but not the software (OS and pre installed Apple software). I wonder why the full implication of this is not a bigger part of the discussion on what happens on peoples phones.

 

[qkypgy]

Epic Games (stares over at FB at the corner): Dude, shut up Zuck, we need the public on our side!

 

[Seend1983]

Says the CEO of a company that literally pushes spyware onto users' devices (Onavo VPN app, look it up) so they can get a glimpse into which apps people are interested then kill the fledging app by cloning it inside FB/Instagram.

 

[bousozoku]

Since when is sucking the life out of people and their information innovation?

 

[hot-gril]

I don't care much about any of what Facebook does, even if they're buying out small competitors.. Except what makes me upset is when someone refuses to sell and they respond by copying. Given that precedent, when FB asks to buy something, what they mean is, "you sell or we steal."

If you've ever wondered how a startup founder mulls a giant acquisition offer, read all of the texts between Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom and one of his investors after Mark Zuckerberg first approached them

A 2012 exchange between Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom and investor Matt Cohler provides a rare glimpse into the mind of a startup founder.

www.businessinsider.com

Also, Internet.org.

 

[hot-gril]

They re quiet because this is not a legitimate concern or argument. Now Google monopolizing search and using that to control advertising- that is a legit monopoly.

I wonder how legitimate of a concern it was that before 2018, websites were using cookies without blocking half the page with a giant banner to tell me about it.

 

[7149041]

Man this is heading in the direction where Apple will be forced to open iOS to app installations from other sources

I won’t be surprised when they raise prices across the board if that happens. Messing with their AppStore revenues most likely won’t be without consequences to us all.

 

[tCdemon]

Someone sounds bitter...I mean I would too if I were going to lose some billions out of my billions...give me a break...its just sad that Apple took this long to lock down on some real privacy.