Major U.S. Publishers Join Coalition for App Fairness

[ElitistWhiner]

There's no legal standing here. The fact that Apple makes the hardware, develops the OS and developer tools and controls software distribution within that OS, and has 1st party apps and services that come bundled with the hardware is nothing new. All of these companies knew all of these facts when they decided to start developing apps for iOS.

iOS is not an open development platform, nor is it a monopoly or is Apple big enough to wield its power over any market it competes in to give it an unfair advantage.

Essentially iOS is built from open software. It is a subset of Mach kernel and subset BSD derivation of unix which NeXT and Apple evolved with their combined proprietary API’s, open source contributions and this proprietary subset of an operating system named iOS.

By definition iOS has a monopoly on Apple idevices. Apple AppStore reflects open source philosophy of free software, as in free beer. AppStore charges $0.0 to host, distribute and test software that it releases for free download. BUT AppStore is not free as in free speech. You want to charge, offer subscriptions and in other ways make money using Apple brand, AppStore or any of its proprietary IP hardware AAPL demands compensation.

Apple is neither stifling competition for free beer nor is it an encroachment into free speech, free news or free software. It, AppStore and its policies are supporting the security, open market competition and product choice of a free market to exist in a constellation of products it sells. Along side the free market co-exists non-free: for sale, subscriber and per seat licensed software exclusives.

At issue is whether AAPL and Apple’s monopoly on iOS through its AppStore unjustly entitles Apple to profit from “each” occurrence “every” time an app sells, charges subscription or in other ways profits by using iOS. The conundrum is that 3rd party app developers are entrapped contractually in a monopoly within a natural monopoly. Third party developers have only Android and iOS through which to sell - both monopoly’s. There isnt a third vendor. Thus a natural monopoly.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

There isnt a third vendor. Thus a natural monopoly.

“Number of vendors” doesn’t change the equation. UNLESS there’s a vendor willing to build, develop an OS for, market, and support their hardware FOR FREE, any other vendor will have a monopoly on their hardware, too. If they decide to have a store, they’ll have a monopoly on that as well.

There has been, at no time in history, a monopoly market defined as a company’s product, that has had a antitrust case brought forth and won. The reasons why are obvious. As a result, regardless of the mental gymnastics and academic exercises to the contrary, any Apple case antitrust action that includes “iOS”, “macOS” or any of their other product names will fail.

 

[ElitistWhiner]

Putting aside legal, Bell Telephone is case in point. I can‘t speak legal. Bell Telephone maintained Apple’s argument that its proprietary hardware, i.e. plant and facility, was due revenue on measured bits that it carried as data e.g Fax. No lawyer but this triggered a conundrum over whether Bell was selling access (landline, T1) to its lines or metered rates thru its plant ($/min, bits/sec). MaBell monopoly was broken into the 6 Baby Bells and the argument was left unanswered.

Internet evolved resurfacing the “access” .vs. “measured” usage debate in forum Com-Priv as “ fibre to the bellybutton” thread. At the end of the day it was the function of a free market economy to determine. That would agree with the lack of anti-trust action assertion on Apple’s behalf– were it not the case that the gov’t broke MaBell up into smaller monopolies.

We are witness to history in the making as a free market economy is working to determine access or measured usage again. Apple contractually provides 3rd party developers “access” to its IP and API’s. Apple’s AppStore thru which developers are obligated to release their applications incur no further access fee, however, pay 15-30% measured by <>$1M yearly off topline revenue receipts.

Epic’s argument is an issue of “access” since it is churning out new “widgets” (effectively animated buttons) and not utilizing Apple plant e.g. iCloud. Apple holistically sees no widget but a whole new product, new revenue and topline receipts due AAPL. Essentially, Apple is “measuring“ widget bits.

Outcomes are indeterminable. The assertion ”no action” could prevail. The Baby Bell remedy could re-emerge.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Putting aside legal

Putting aside legal, anything is possible The thing about the judicial process, though, is that you can’t put aside legal. And I think this is a good point. All of the discussions against Apple HAS to start with putting aside any/all legal precedent.

If Apple was wielding monopoly control over the generic “telecommunications market” as Bell was, then the cases would be similar. However, Apple’s only wielding monopoly control where one would expect it to, ‘iOS App Store’ market.

 

[I7guy]

Essentially iOS is built from open software. It is a subset of Mach kernel and subset BSD derivation of unix which NeXT and Apple evolved with their combined proprietary API’s, open source contributions and this proprietary subset of an operating system named iOS.

By definition iOS has a monopoly on Apple idevices. Apple AppStore reflects open source philosophy of free software, as in free beer. AppStore charges $0.0 to host, distribute and test software that it releases for free download. BUT AppStore is not free as in free speech. You want to charge, offer subscriptions and in other ways make money using Apple brand, AppStore or any of its proprietary IP hardware AAPL demands compensation.

Apple is neither stifling competition for free beer nor is it an encroachment into free speech, free news or free software. It, AppStore and its policies are supporting the security, open market competition and product choice of a free market to exist in a constellation of products it sells. Along side the free market co-exists non-free: for sale, subscriber and per seat licensed software exclusives.

At issue is whether AAPL and Apple’s monopoly on iOS through its AppStore unjustly entitles Apple to profit from “each” occurrence “every” time an app sells, charges subscription or in other ways profits by using iOS. The conundrum is that 3rd party app developers are entrapped contractually in a monopoly within a natural monopoly. Third party developers have only Android and iOS through which to sell - both monopoly’s. There isnt a third vendor. Thus a natural monopoly.

A Netflix app is on my Samsung TV, iphone and probably available on Android, LG, and other smart TVs and devices, thus not a natural monopoly.

 

[MacCheetah3]

Is it just me ? I honestly don't see the need for any app to read news.

Is there something wrong with their website ? What can their app do that a website cannot ?

You just hit the nail on the head. They want to be able to use the App Store and have apps for free. As the above mentioned, create your own ecosystem then. It blows my mind they want intermediary for free.

Not exactly that, though you are headed in the correct direction.

It's like this... The news and magazine publishers were invited and joined a new avenue of exposure and distribution. After years, most of them have maintained the agreement: we provide content, Apple shows it to users, some users pay for said content, publishers pay Apple, essentially sharing increased revenue. If this was not satisfactory i.e. there is no increased revenue to pay Apple, the publisher can decide to stop paying Apple, although, then Apple will not assist in sharing the publisher's content. However, if the publisher can have the additional exposure and not share their extra revenue without resistance/recourse, it's simply an extra benefit for the publisher -- the uncompensated assistance from Apple be damned.

Basically, it's not "create your own ecosystem/tablet/phone/platform." It's find a better collaborator, if you can -- but, of course, as most the the article's listed publishers haven't freely walked away from the agreement and utilized other avenues, evidently, it's not a burden. 😉