Having a certification process isn't what makes apple a monopoly. Having ownership of all iOS app stores is what makes apple a monopoly. Sony doesn't own all PS4 game stores.
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.
Kaspersky Lab Files Antitrust Complaint Against Apple Over App Store Policy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Having a certification process isn't what makes apple a monopoly. Having ownership of all iOS app stores is what makes apple a monopoly. Sony doesn't own all PS4 game stores.
That’s not what a monopoly is. I cannot make a PS4 game without paying Sony fees. It doesn’t matter if I want to sell it at Target. There is no third party way to put games on a PS4 like on my computer if I just want to distribute the exe file.
Problem is you are advocating that just because you don’t need feature x no one else can have it. Even though adding feature x won’t impact you in any way. That’s a straw man argument.
[doublepost=1553153154][/doublepost]
Both Sony and Microsoft allow self publishing.
Very unconvincing and irrelevant example. Intel doesn't fab AMD's CPUs so mentioning these two companies in this context makes absolutely no sense at all.
And yes Apple's price for their streaming service is the same or cheaper and Spotify is forced to use workarounds that are inferior in terms of users experience just to match Apple's price.
Spotify is in reason, These guys are not!!!!
[doublepost=1553155761][/doublepost]
No.
[doublepost=1553155761][/doublepost]
No.
Rocking up to a till and paying for something or entering credit card is hardly a chore.
But, Yes it will be better when everywhere people use an indirect token.
Whenever you buy things and things go wrong, you deal with your own debit/credit card company, not someone elses.
You don't see the unlevel playing field here?
If Apple and Spotify charge the customer the same amount, Apple has a 30% lower cost that it does not have to pay. That is the definition of monopolistic behaviour.
That depends on how Apple go about it. I don't think Apple are abusing any position here. As it happens both Apple and Microsoft don't charge for software on iOS
I bet they won't
I bet there won't
People can compare what they want. It Apple is abusing its power, then they will be dealt with eventually.
I think the iPhone and iPad were innovative.
You have it backwards.
It's not that I don't need nor appreciate those features, but that I have come to terms with the way Apple does things, and made my peace.
A little bit of personal history (skip ahead if you aren't willing to tolerate me in self-soliloquy: I got my first iPad in 2012, and started using it in the classroom. Peer-to-peer airplay would be supported in 2015, while 2016 saw the release of the iPad Pro and Apple Pencil. In the meantime, the iPad got incremental updates which improved its utility in teaching. Sometimes in dribs and drabs, sometimes in leaps and bounds. Today, I would say that my iPad setup is more or less complete. Could Apple do more to improve its functionality, such as support for third party drives? Sure, but I am not going to lose sleep over missing these features, and I will get around to using them if and when Apple does finally get around to supporting them (if at all).
In another vein, could those aforementioned features have been supported sooner? Sure. Earlier peer-to-peer airplay would have saved me the hassle of carrying a pocket router with 4g dongle around with me to work with my Apple TV. But it is what it is. If Apple doesn't (yet) support a certain feature, I will just live with it. And when they (finally) release a feature, I will use it if I find a use for it. When those features were finally released, I wasn't angry or mad that Apple took as long as they did. I simply went "cool!" and made use of them.
For me, what I have come to accept is that neither platform is perfect, and the fact that I have opted to stick with Apple all these years means that I ultimately value what Apple does offer me over what it doesn't (and over what the competition promises). Part of this also means accepting, embracing the fact that Apple will always be Apple.
What this means is that Apple marches to their own beat and doesn't care a crap about what everyone else thinks. That's what makes them so awesome in my book (and admittedly so very insufferable to others). But on a more serious note, Apple isn’t a very difficult company to read. You just have to block out a lot of the noise and bullcrap that you see online and mostly look at their design decisions and listen to what they actually say.
And so I chose to embrace the Apple ecosystem in its entirety. For example, when Apple released the AirPods in end 2016, I bought them right away, even though my iPhone 6s+ still had a headphone jack. Because the writing was on the wall. Apple has optimised their product around a certain vision of how they would like you to use it, and I felt it was simply easier to embrace this so as to maximise my user experience, rather than try to fight the change (eg: continue using an adaptor with wired headphones, or hanging on to your 6S+ for dear life), and making yourself so bitter and miserable in the process.
Which is why Apple is so polarising. They are precisely the sort of company who would ditch something so users have less choice, but possibly (in their opinion) a better experience. More often than not, Apple will aim for product experience at the sacrifice of user choice. And if Apple's idea of what you want in a product matches yours, then it is full of secret magic and delight. And I guess I have been lucky in that Apple's design decisions in general have been more or less in sync with my own needs and desires.
And if not, it can be frustration, like jogging through quicksand. You can try to fight the system with every ounce of strength in your body, but it will be pointless, and you will ultimately die a painful and agonising death.
It takes a great deal of courage to see Apple in all its tainted glory, and still love it.
And if you have it thus far, thank you for your patience in listening to me rant and letting me get this off my chest.
Dam !!
Companies should have respect for App Store rules, and alike. I reckon there is increase in companies now not favoring these rules ganging up on Apple, almost as if its something 'new' to them they never seen before..
Apple's always had these.
What illegal things ? Apple has always played by their own rules. The companies just want it their way cause they wish to be a part of the eco-system, and they hate change...
Apple can make their changes because they own the store...
Companies should have respect for App Store rules, and alike. I reckon there is increase in companies now not favoring these rules ganging up on Apple, almost as if its something 'new' to them they never seen before..
Apple's always had these.
What illegal things ? Apple has always played by their own rules. The companies just want it their way cause they wish to be a part of the eco-system, and they hate change...
Apple can make their changes because they own the store...
And yet we have people that have Stockholm syndrome or cults, it isn't until they leave the cult that they see Apple for what it really is.
On my daily commute, I have to switch manually between iPad and iPhone to listen to audio - it doesn't just work.
When I want to connect to wireless hotspot on my iPad, it doesn't just work, I have to actually be on the hotspot screen then the iPad connects.
Last week my Apple watch started running out of power at around 12 hours, it doesn't just work. I had to unpair and then repair to get my battery life back.
I look at my iPhone the other day and it has a message saying it hasn't backed up to my MBP, for months. It doesn't just work.
[doublepost=1553167654][/doublepost]
I works both ways, Apple should have respect for other companies.
Hey that's different and you know it. You should really have that cough looked at by a specialist. Besides they are RUSSIANS. You know, they insert malware and then ask you to pay to remove it but then don't. Yes them, RUSSIANS.
I don't know Putin, he doesn't know me. I like him and I hope he likes me, but I don't know, we will see
This. https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...t-means/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.76d10bad4fea
Apple is currently in a class action lawsuit to determine if they are a monopoly. Monopoly + these anticompetitive behavior = illegal
Really? How can I direct a user on PS4 to my website where they can download the game?
Sony and MS and Nintendo don't have a distribution monopoly. Apple does.
No one is saying you can sell directly to the user and skip out on app approval or paying fees.
that could be argued as anti-trust and anti-competitive.
Kaspersky had a product people were paying for and using.
Apple comes out with their own version (this itself isn't the problem)
Apple then changes the rules on kaspersky stating that now since Apple has a competing product, Kaspersky is no longer allowed to have their product.
that's fishy business.
though, filing in Russia, also fishy business.
at the end of the day, there's arugment to be had if Apple is behaving in a monopolistic practice, due especially to the fact that iOS is not a monopoly in the phone business, so anti-trust might be harder to prove.
But at the same time iOS is the only OS of note that enforces such draconian practices allowing program installation from only one exclusive source, thus giving Apple direct control over their competition in the app/services spaces. This itself might be enough to be considered anti-competitive.
For Example, on Windows, MacOS, Android, BBOS10, WinPhone, etc, etc. Almost every OS allows installation of programs from 3rd party sources and alternative "App stores". it's iOS exclusive practice to lock down delivery in such a way.
That’s not what the arguments are though. They want to avoid the fees of their app. Would you be okay with apple still taking 30% of your revenue due to licensing and fees if it’s allowed on a different App Store?
If apple wants to charge 30% for app aproval services/licensing, that's apples option. Obviously a 30% cut for doing close to no work is going to be seen by many as very greedy.
Too high a cut means that developers might end up not developing for the App Store at all, if they didn't think it was worth their while.
Interestingly enough, Apple is reportedly asking for a 50% cut for their news streaming service. Apple is many things, but they are not run by idiots, and they will likely have done the sums to make sure that it's still lucrative for their partners.
That is what im waiting to see... not stopping developing but rather protest. apple has started to treat developers badly - rejecting, copying their work, removing apps from appstore etc.
Asking 50% (news app subs.) should start a ball rolling down the hill and devs should protest that arrogance. Taking app away for a week or month could be a good way to show ”enough is enough”. That is the only thing apple understand.
Mac appstore is literally dead - too much was too much (e.g. restrictions that program couldnt work as expected). Everyone is downloading and buying software outside mac appstore.
All the time apple remember to praise how much devs have made money but always forgot to mention how much money apple was able to collect by devs work. Without devs iphone would have been quite a marginal phone, lot less than it is nowdays. Instead of talking about money, apple should listen devs.
Spotify, Kaspersky are on the right track. If devs kneel down all the time, it is only matter of time when they are in a bag without escape. Apple is pushing services hard and making sure that they take a nice amount of profits to themselves.
While it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy, your point kinda justifies why Apple does what they do.
For one, the possibility that a key developer might withhold some critical app (such as spotify) from the App Store at any time is precisely why Apple needs to have its own equivalent services. I have used this scenario more than a couple of times, and I think it's a lesson that bears remembering. Remember Google Maps? Because Apple now has its own maps app, Google Maps is forced to play nice by (finally) releasing not just a proper maps app of their own, but also go out of their way to ensure that the google maps app is superior in every way. The end result is that we consumers benefit. If Maps didn't exist and Apple (and us consumers) were reliant on just one company for such a critical piece of the Apple experience, things would have gone a lot worse.
Imagine if Google were to one day withhold their services from Apple. At least I still have iCloud mail and safari to fall back on, rather than be left high and dry.
Second, Apple doesn't just reject or remove apps for no good reason. Developers might want to ask themselves why their apps are being targetted. I acknowledge that Apple tends to be a tad overzealous at times, but as a consumer, I would rather they be more strict when it comes to vetting apps than too lax.
Third, recall what Epic did with Fortnite. On Android, they got users to side load the app onto their phone just so they could avoid paying Google their 30% cut. Not only did prices not decrease, but users had to effectively compromise the security of their devices. On iOS, Epic didn't dare try such a stunt. The end result is that I as the consumer continue to pay the same price, but benefiting from the security of the iOS App Store.
Last, if developers are being treated that badly, why do they continue to develop apps for iOS first or exclusively? Obviously because that's where the money is. Nobody is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to choose a career developing apps for iOS, nor is the 30% cut anything new.
I don't think Apple treats developers all that badly. These rules are in place to protect consumers. Sometimes, what a developer wants may not be in the best interests of the consumers (like using their own payment processing rather than iTunes), and as a consumer, I am grateful for the protections the App Store has in place.
And if a developer isn't happy, he is free to leave. He just won't be getting my money, and I am sure there are plenty of other alternatives to fill the void. And if all developers decide to organise a mass boycott? Well, I just won't buy any apps then, and I will support Apple coming out with their own homegrown alternatives, because you have pretty much just proven Apple's point for them.
Developers must never be allowed to gain too much power in this relationship.
My word you should take up writing fan fiction!
This post reads as if there have never been malware issues on the App Store, this is incorrect of course and thus this argument makes little sense.
My country enjoys a fairly low crime rate. By your logic, we should fire all our police officers, because anything higher than a 0% crime rate implies that law enforcement has failed, right?
Of course there is still malware, piracy and bad actors in the iOS App Store, but it’s a far lower occurrence than what you see on Android thanks to Google’s laissez faire attitude when it comes to security. And it’s not hard to see the benefits of a well-tended garden, with developers opting to develop apps for ios first. In the very least, I don’t see a company like Epic trying to pull a stunt like getting iOS users to download their Fortnite app from some shady third party source, bypassing all the security measures that ios has in place and compromising my own safety for no benefit to myself at all.
No not at all. At no point have I claimed Apple should do away with the App Store or App Review so your Police analogy is silly.
I just understand that Apple can have measures in place to be vigilant about the security of their platform without using the App Stores policy to behave in an anticompetitive manner towards third party services and the argument that they can't is entirely disingenuous.
I don’t think Apple is being uncompetitive.
It’s really about seeing how the various policies come together to allow for a better end user experience for us consumers.
Look to the post above mine for why I feel Apple is justified in having their own competing apps and services. It basically serves as a hedge should influential app developers ever get greedy or act in a manner that is not in the best interests of their consumers. I am absolutely behind Apple in this regard, even as I acknowledge that it might not be entirely fair to app developers whose apps have been “sherlocked”.
I think it also makes sense that if a certain feature proves popular enough that Apple end up just folding that functionality into its own OS, such as integrating a flashlight function into control centre, or bundling a free measuring app with iOS 12. There are still plenty of ways the developer can differentiate his app, since Apple is copying just the very basic functionality here.
The 30% cut is probably the most contentious point, but I find it is disingenuous that every company conveniently fails to mention how this drops to 15% after the first year.
Same for not allowing other payment processing options. It’s probably better that my payment details stays with Apple, rather than proliferating to every developer whom I buy an app from.
I suppose Apple might eventually capitulate on allowing app developers to mention that they could also subscribe directly via the website. I really don’t see the harm, but I can also see why Apple has no incentive to give in if they absolutely didn’t have to.
At the end of the day, it’s really about ensuring a great integrated experience of us end users.