I think the iPhone "Apple" monopoly is about the same as Papa Johns monopoly in the pizza market. 
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.
Is iPhone competing or trying to maintain monopoly?
- Thread starter VinegarTasters
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This thread is weird.
My understanding of how Apple earns its profits is by 'locking' you into their ecosystem. Basically, their products and services play really well with one another, and much less so with other non-apple devices. This incentivises consumers to continue accumulating more apple gadgets as opposed to a mix of devices from different manufacturers.
It's not really a monopoly in the sense of the word in that if you just want a smartphone or tablet or laptop, there are certainly many viable alternatives around. However, if you simply must use OSX or IOS, then yes, I suppose you can argue that Apple is a monopoly in that they do not license their software to other companies.
Even then, I see nothing wrong with it, because while profitable, they are currently far from being in an overly dominant position.
I am reminded of a quote from Steve Jobs during his D10 interview.
Basically, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy an iphone. The millions of people clamouring for each release of the iphone shows that Apple is doing something right, even if they release just 1 standard model every year.
Basically, Apple simplifies your purchasing decision for you. We have 1 model - you like it, you buy it. You hate it, don't upgrade. If people didn't like the iphone, they would have spoken with their wallet and simply gone with a competitor's model instead.
My understanding of how Apple earns its profits is by 'locking' you into their ecosystem. Basically, their products and services play really well with one another, and much less so with other non-apple devices. This incentivises consumers to continue accumulating more apple gadgets as opposed to a mix of devices from different manufacturers.
It's not really a monopoly in the sense of the word in that if you just want a smartphone or tablet or laptop, there are certainly many viable alternatives around. However, if you simply must use OSX or IOS, then yes, I suppose you can argue that Apple is a monopoly in that they do not license their software to other companies.
Even then, I see nothing wrong with it, because while profitable, they are currently far from being in an overly dominant position.
I am reminded of a quote from Steve Jobs during his D10 interview.
Basically, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy an iphone. The millions of people clamouring for each release of the iphone shows that Apple is doing something right, even if they release just 1 standard model every year.
Basically, Apple simplifies your purchasing decision for you. We have 1 model - you like it, you buy it. You hate it, don't upgrade. If people didn't like the iphone, they would have spoken with their wallet and simply gone with a competitor's model instead.
OP, your use of the word monopoly is completely crazy.
According to you we could say that McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs and Burger King has a monopoly on Whoppers.
This is completely useless to say and it tells us nothing, no matter if you're talking about hamburgers or app stores.
Also, Windows was called a monopoly because they ran 90%+ of personal computers, NOT because only Windows could run Windows software as your argument seems to suggest.
According to you we could say that McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs and Burger King has a monopoly on Whoppers.
This is completely useless to say and it tells us nothing, no matter if you're talking about hamburgers or app stores.
Also, Windows was called a monopoly because they ran 90%+ of personal computers, NOT because only Windows could run Windows software as your argument seems to suggest.
Nice try. Shifting the topic away from the meat of the article and tying it to the definition of Monopoly. How about this... using your definition, 90% of the apps sold (money exchanged hands) are on Apple's App Store. Fair? Yes, it means of all apps sold in App Stores (Google and Apple's) 90% are sold on App Store. This would fit your definition of monopoly better... 90%. It needs to be tied to "sold" because in the Windows model previously, anyone can sell anything (even in brick motar stores), not tied to Microsoft. In this App Store model, everything "sold" goes through only one entity, Apple.
Now we settled this, tell me why everyone ignored why Apple cripples iMovie.
Last edited:
Yes to use their content aside from music... Video purchase and apps are still very restricted to iTunes. I'm not complaining I'm just trying to understand the OP. I'm quite in favor of a walled garden so to speak...
----------
Microsofts issue with monopoly wasn't the percentage of machines running windows. It was their practice of crippling other software that was a competitor of theirs on windows machines... Netscape vs Internet explorer. There were programming decisions made to deliberate make other programs not work as efficiently in the windows environment thereby stifling the choice of the consumer. Big difference.
The Big Mac and whopper comparison was cute.
When you buy an iphone you KNOW you're signing up to use itunes and you KNOW you're signing up to use the Apple app store.
PERIOD.
If you DON'T want to use either of those entities, it's really simple -- don't get an iphone.
Get a Nokia, get an HTC, Samsung -- hell, dig out that old flip phone.
It really IS that simple. It really is.
PERIOD.
If you DON'T want to use either of those entities, it's really simple -- don't get an iphone.
Get a Nokia, get an HTC, Samsung -- hell, dig out that old flip phone.
It really IS that simple. It really is.
I wasn't trying to pass any judgement on Microsoft. Just using it as a real-world example of what a Monopoly is:
Dictionary.com
Exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market
That was the only thing I was trying to say with that.
No, not fair. What's your source? I don't believe it.
And remember, apps that are free but sell ads count as money is being made by the developer. How are you differentiating between free apps that make money from ads and free apps that are just hobbies or money-losers? MANY of the 'top grossing' apps in Apple's store are free apps!
Your argument is based on this 90% fact and I think it's not a real fact.
We ignored it since you provided no link to explain what the heck you're talking about. Right now it looks like a story where you had trouble with iMovie. Is there something somewhere that shows Apple actually crippled it and it's not just some problem with your machine?
I did a google search for 'apple cripples imovie' and guess what came up?
This stupid thread.
And a couple of others whining about the same thing. Not a single shred of actual evidence that Apple did indeed cripple imovie.
Oh wait -- there were some that praised Apple for increasing the resolution in imovie.
This stupid thread.
And a couple of others whining about the same thing. Not a single shred of actual evidence that Apple did indeed cripple imovie.
Oh wait -- there were some that praised Apple for increasing the resolution in imovie.
Understand. I was pointing out the deceptive part that was determined to be Microsoft's monopoly. The act of having the marketshare lead wasn't the issue.
Apple does have a monopoly on their device with regards to content. There are work arounds and other devices that can be purchased, but if you choose to purchase an Apple device you are in a closed ecosystem walled garden. It's a beautiful garden none the less.
This is where the Big Mac thing comes in. Everyone has a monopoly if you try and define the word in such a narrow way.
I'm not saying that sentence is wrong, just that it doesn't help us understand anything. Palm had a monopoly of devices that ran WebOS, for example, but that's not really going to tell you anything about their level of success.
Fair enough. We need to understand monopoly isn't always a bad thing either. It's when consumers are short changed or options are removed. But conceptually if you want to purchase content on an idevice you are severally limited on the source of that purchased content... iTunes. But consumers still have options so its more of a cost of ownership. Again I love the ecosystem and have no issues with it. This is where the iBook issues came up for apple and the price setting they were doing. I didn't read much of it as I don't really care. I buy iBooks for convenience. I don't care who fixes what price. But there is a fine line that has to be policed, so in a sense we do have to be protected from narrow use of the word monopoly as well.
Very insightful side discussion I must say. Thank you.
Take a read of this:
http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/75920/fix-bad-image-quality-in-dark-images-in-imovie
Then read this:
http://www.aibal.com/imovie-banding-posterization/
(look for the last comment from Carlos Gonzalez April 9, 2012 at 8:52 pm
)
So what happened was, iMovie 6 and iMovie 8 works perfectly, Apple degrades it to 8 bits in newer versions iMovie 9, 11 (on exporting movie only). So your import and manipulation in iMovie is fine. Then when you export, the movie is unusable with pixillation. Then someone comes in, and teaches people how to get around the problem by substituting the "bad" export module component used by iMovie with a "good" one. But Apple comes in and purposely patches it so that now on import it is pixelated. Now iMovies is basically useless.
Of course you can read this too: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1305237/
(with a spin on solution is to pay for Final Cut Pro)
Too bad all those people who paid for iMovie, iLife are screwed. iMovie 6 good. iMovie 9/11 bad. Manual substitution of components, back to good. Apple patches your iMovie purposely over internet. Now your bought iMovie is worthless again (patch affected import now, not just export). Solution? Buy Final Cut Pro.
But the main difference is... A company screwing with competitors versus a company screwing with its customers?
Last edited:
Ok, so now where's the link between "Apple's trying to maintain a monopoly" and "Apple has screwed up some of their software?"
What's the plan there? People stop using iMovie so that forces them to buy more Macs? That doesn't really seem like a plan.
One might think they're trying to get you to buy Final Cut, but you already shot that idea down yourself.
...so that's clearly not the plan since, as you point out, it makes no sense.
So what is it?
I can't believe you can't see the light in this issue. If you do not agree with me on this issue, then...
Imagine next time you go to get a lube job (change oil), and they purposely put a nail in your tire (when you are in waiting room) and then pull you over to examine the nail so you pay for a new tire (or service patch the hole from the inside). Imagine they do some other sneaky things (leak coolant? engine overheats later?), so you need to make extra repairs in the name of profit. If you attack me on this issue you are attacking yourself as a consumer.
obviously you don't own a business, small or large, that's trying to compete in a world that has everything already. call me stupid, i don't have a 4 yr degree, nor do i work for a big wig company. but this is rookie stuff here. wouldn't you want to be on top if you were competing in a market of similar things?
You're still not making any sense. This has nothing to do with Apple being a monopoly whatsoever and more to do with the fact that you think Apple are running a big conspiracy to make people buy more software/hardware by deliberately putting bugs in their products.
Most normal people would ask for a bug fix update, not go out and buy new software/hardware, so your point doesn't make any sense.
Ok, so Jiffy Lube puts a nail in my tire. 10 miles later I have to stop at Firestone to get a tire. What's Jiffy Lube's incentive to do that? Is Firestone paying them to do that?
So if I'm following your analogy here, you think that Apple crippled iMovie because someone like, let's say Adobe, is paying them to do that so that people will buy video editing software from Adobe.
I'm sorry, but you've reached an all new level of tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theory with this one. You're on your own here.
You shouldn't ask someone to do something, if you're not doing it yourself.
No one ever said Microsoft wasn't a monopoly.
Microsoft had more than a 90% market share on ALL computing devices at the time it was deemed a monopoly. To this day, Microsoft maintains that marketshare among desktop and laptop computing systems, though the waters have been muddied now that market research firms tends to lump tablets and smartphones as "computers" these days.
But back to hard facts: 90% does not equal 18% (Apple's current hardware market share for mobile devices). Not by a longshot. Nor does it equal 7.05%, which is the current market share of OS X.
It doesn't even come close to 46%, Apple's estimated share of apps available among all major app stores. Which is itself is a hugely flawed number, considering only 18% of the handsets on the market are partaking in those apps.
(By the way, I'm not sure where 18% came from. It was mentioned earlier in this thread. But according to Gartner, Apples global smartphone market share is actually closer to 13.9%)
With this in mind, your argument collapses in on itself. If Apple is trying to lock people in with limited phone designs, restrictions in iTunes and App Store lock-ins, they're failing miserably at it, since some 86% of smartphone users and 93% of desktop/laptop users aren't
even using these "restrictive" pieces of software.
----------
...then, what?
Who is this mysterious "They" who not only are changing your oil, but also have law enforcement powers and can compel you to pull over while you're driving, so that they can do a safety inspection of your tires, and then force you to ONLY buy replacement tires from them?
NO quickie oil change place has this authority. None of your arguments have any basis in reality. And if you have to bend reality THAT severely to make your point, then you don't really have a valid point to make.
I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out that your argument lacks any validity or basis in reality.
----------
The good news is: Most people paid $0 for it. It came preinstalled on their macs. It's kinda hard to fault a vendor for modifying software you didn't pay for, in ways you didn't like.
Additional good news: this is completely irrelevant to the 90% of desktop PC users who are part of Microsoft's Windows monopoly, and can't even use iLife, much less care about how Apple modified it.
Last edited:
Wow, must be a communication problem. Lets try again...
A BUG is something that a company likes to fix. If they can't then bummer, they don't have the technical capability to resolve a problem.
Apparently, the only post with "bug" is Microsoft related. What Apple is doing is similar to what Sears (look up their auto repair shop history) and many auto shops do (crippling in the name of profit)...
"Imagine next time you go to get a lube job (change oil), and they purposely put a nail in your tire (when you are in waiting room) and then pull you over to examine the nail so you pay for a new tire (or service patch the hole from the inside). Imagine they do some other sneaky things (leak coolant? engine overheats later?), so you need to make extra repairs in the name of profit. If you attack me on this issue you are attacking yourself as a consumer."
"pull you over" refers to "getting your attention" in the same place where you are currently getting an oil change. While you are waiting for your car to get an oil change, and you are in the waiting room, they put a nail in your tire. Then the manager or mechanic gets your attention to look at the nail. Extra income repairing the tire.
Also, iMovie is for sale (not just free) in the App Store, and people are buying it to this day, so if you condone a company crippling it over the internet, then this is similar to Ford sending a mechanic to your house and crippling your car engine, forcing you to go to Ford to buy a new engine, or you can shop for another car). What Apple is thinking is that because buying a new car is more expensive, they make an extra profit selling a new engine to you. Assuming the engine only runs in Fords, and other companies don't sell engines for Ford.
I think I've posted enough on this subject. If you guys condone this behavior then you have your own demons to work out. Just think of this post next time you get screwed over at an auto mechanic. And remember, I'm not anti-Apple. I'm pro-consumer (of which you are too). So if you are paid posting here, remember that.
This is not an isolated issue:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=imovie+pixelated
A BUG is something that a company likes to fix. If they can't then bummer, they don't have the technical capability to resolve a problem.
Apparently, the only post with "bug" is Microsoft related. What Apple is doing is similar to what Sears (look up their auto repair shop history) and many auto shops do (crippling in the name of profit)...
"Imagine next time you go to get a lube job (change oil), and they purposely put a nail in your tire (when you are in waiting room) and then pull you over to examine the nail so you pay for a new tire (or service patch the hole from the inside). Imagine they do some other sneaky things (leak coolant? engine overheats later?), so you need to make extra repairs in the name of profit. If you attack me on this issue you are attacking yourself as a consumer."
"pull you over" refers to "getting your attention" in the same place where you are currently getting an oil change. While you are waiting for your car to get an oil change, and you are in the waiting room, they put a nail in your tire. Then the manager or mechanic gets your attention to look at the nail. Extra income repairing the tire.
Also, iMovie is for sale (not just free) in the App Store, and people are buying it to this day, so if you condone a company crippling it over the internet, then this is similar to Ford sending a mechanic to your house and crippling your car engine, forcing you to go to Ford to buy a new engine, or you can shop for another car). What Apple is thinking is that because buying a new car is more expensive, they make an extra profit selling a new engine to you. Assuming the engine only runs in Fords, and other companies don't sell engines for Ford.
I think I've posted enough on this subject. If you guys condone this behavior then you have your own demons to work out. Just think of this post next time you get screwed over at an auto mechanic. And remember, I'm not anti-Apple. I'm pro-consumer (of which you are too). So if you are paid posting here, remember that.
This is not an isolated issue:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=imovie+pixelated
Last edited:
Yeah, no Vinegar, if this was a paper, it would get a "D." There is no flow to it, there is no focus, no main point. It's just a series of rants, and even those I don't know what specifically ur ranting about. Hate capitalism? Corporations Bad? Dunno, there is some dark deep creepy problems there somewhere.