Exactly this. Free market.
Example lots of people I know have and are moving away from Google services because of privacy concerns. They don’t like what Google is doing and they choose other options. No one is forced to use Apple or Google products.
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.
Multiple U.S. States Sue Google for Violating Antitrust Laws With Play Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Example lots of people I know have and are moving away from Google services because of privacy concerns. They don’t like what Google is doing and they choose other options. No one is forced to use Apple or Google products.
I would say 80%. When a company achieves 80% dominance, they have a monopoly in that market. Now, that doesn't mean they're going to illegally use that monopoly power. But...I've yet to see a company legally achieve a monopoly in a given market. In fact, I'm starting to think that it's not actually possible, that all monopolies are achieved through illegal acts of one form or another.
I suspect I might be in the minority on this, but for me, "legal" vs "illegal" hinges on whether customers/users/vendors/developers are forced to use or not use a product. And by force I mean either a) threats of violence/intimidation or b) the power of law/gov't is used to mandate what's available or limit who can enter the market.
So, when you need a license to operate a moving company, but the body that issues the licenses happens to be the folks who operate other existing moving companies, and they prevent new companies from entering the market — that's a monopoly (or, technically a cartel?). But it only exists because they've been able to carve out a law that gives them that authority.
The thing is, if you look back over the years to these huge behemoths of companies that so many people were worried about, how many of them have gone away/under or are simply a shell of what they once were? Blackberry. IBM. Sears. Blockbuster.
From my perspective, markets tend to be more powerful that would-be monopolies, though perhaps only over a longer timeline that others are willing to let play out.
“It’s Apple’s platform, they can do what they want” I hear people say constantly. That would be true if Apple kept the iPhone as it originally was - a completely closed platform only capable of running first-party apps. The moment they opened the platform up to developers to compete on they created a marketplace and have to abide by all the rules and regulations that govern a marketplace.
Imagine if Walmart imposed rules on Gillette that said, in order for Gillette to sell its razors at Walmart, they had to follow specific rules. Gillette is not allowed to offer their razors or refill cartridges at a lower price at any other store, including their own. They’re not allowed to advertise that you can buy replacement razor cartridges anywhere besides Walmart. And Walmart will sell its own brand of razors and place them in more prominent locations in the store. Sure I could go to Target but Walmart is closer and more convenient and this unfairness that occurs in the background isn’t readily apparent to me as a consumer.
The app store itself is less of an issue as is the draconian rules Apple imposes on developers to participate in the store, alongside the deeper level of integration it gives its own services that aren’t available to similar third-party offerings.
It’s not about security, Apple can mandate strict signing for any app installed on iOS similar to macOS.
It’s not about convenience with in-app payment. Apple can mandate that developers offer Apple Pay as a payment option (which apple does *not* take 30% out of) and have consistent dispute/refund rules.
Imagine if Walmart imposed rules on Gillette that said, in order for Gillette to sell its razors at Walmart, they had to follow specific rules. Gillette is not allowed to offer their razors or refill cartridges at a lower price at any other store, including their own. They’re not allowed to advertise that you can buy replacement razor cartridges anywhere besides Walmart. And Walmart will sell its own brand of razors and place them in more prominent locations in the store. Sure I could go to Target but Walmart is closer and more convenient and this unfairness that occurs in the background isn’t readily apparent to me as a consumer.
The app store itself is less of an issue as is the draconian rules Apple imposes on developers to participate in the store, alongside the deeper level of integration it gives its own services that aren’t available to similar third-party offerings.
It’s not about security, Apple can mandate strict signing for any app installed on iOS similar to macOS.
It’s not about convenience with in-app payment. Apple can mandate that developers offer Apple Pay as a payment option (which apple does *not* take 30% out of) and have consistent dispute/refund rules.
Can’t wait for it to be tossed. Google play = private marketplace = not regulated. Anti-trust does not apply
besides all the emotions around the subject, what is the cogent legal theory for regulating private enterprises prices? How about gas stations, grocery stores. Here is actually one that should be regulated: airline change fees that steal your money and allow airlines to both charge you and resell your ticket not used - shameful
besides all the emotions around the subject, what is the cogent legal theory for regulating private enterprises prices? How about gas stations, grocery stores. Here is actually one that should be regulated: airline change fees that steal your money and allow airlines to both charge you and resell your ticket not used - shameful
Yawn, come back when you fully develop this argument into something that is actually true
im not a developer.
I was thinking aloud about what a developers stated earlier in the thread.
I was saying either test flight or a web-based app would work more consistently, or should, for many users /friends/family and having a link works for more than one platform sounds and in theory would work better (ease of deployment, fixing bugs, etc) for various platforms as I’ve mentioned.
to me that makes better sense, over time, yet I’m not a developer. I’m curious how the entire post I made earlier, summarized here doesn’t make sense to a developer ??
I totally get that such policies might be seen as burdensome. But, in your scenario, Gillette still has a choice: given the strictures Wal-Mart expects, are they better off or worse off (profitability-wise) selling or not selling through Wal-Mart? They can try and negotiate. They can encourage customers to share feedback with Wal-Mart. They can do any number of things to try and find an alternative that works for them.
But opting to use the force of law to get Wal-Mart to operate the way Gillette would prefer seems inappropriate to me.
Funny how Sony and Microsoft have been doing this for years with their respective console platforms and now Google and Apple are the ones in the AG’s crosshairs. Me thinks I smell a money grab from two of the highest valued companies in the world and not so much protecting consumer’s best interests, but perhaps I’m being overly cynical. Meanwhile, keep your alternate App Stores over on the Android side of the fence, I don’t want or need them and I don’t want to have to help my parents navigate this minefield. If I did, I would have had them buy Android phones.
You're missing the crux of the issue here. The "my way or the highway" model of store operation is completely fine, if:
1) Your store is relatively small, OR
2) There are many alternatives to your store
While Apple's app store is not a monopoly, it is certainly a duopoly along with Google's Play store since combined they represent more than 99% of the US mobile app store market. Mobile app makers are essentially forced to comply with the terms of the duopoly if they want to reach a broad market. If an app maker is unwilling or unable to comply with one store's terms the available market is cut in half. Many would see this as an unfair burden think reasonable regulation makes sense.
FWIW, there is some sort of App Store review even with TestFlight. It typically takes about a day before builds I upload are approved for distribution via TestFlight.. Not sure if the review is as thorough as for app store builds, because I don’t butt up against any of Apple’s rules so I always get approved.
You are essentially forced to use either Apple or Google products if you want to have a smartphone. Many would argue a smartphone is a necessity in modern society.
How are you essentially force to? There are other choices. You just don’t like them as much.
You keep going on like they are going to force you to do these things. It's your device. If you don't want it, then don't do it. It's really pretty simple.
nah. hate apple? go to android. its really that simple 
Name a single mobile app store that is not Apple or Google that offers a comparable app catalog and is available to your average user…
i think you're oversimplifying — if apple opens the app store to what was mentioned in the original post — it may effect existing apps that i currently use. and i would not appreciate device to delete them and not use them anymore
apple does things their way and some of us are quite ok with this.
Why does it have to be a “comparable app catalog?” Name a single car that has comparable performance to a Tesla Model S Plaid or a Ferrari. I guess users have no practical alternative to those cars, right?
Or, just do what I do already, and just use their web interface instead of the app. FB has a bad habit of sneaking user-detrimental things (location tracking and cross-app tracking, for instance) into the app, hoping that users won't find out about them.
This can also apply to *any* app which also offers a web interface.
Apple's iOS App Store is only a small player when you factor in app stores on Android and other mobile OSes. On its own, the iOS App Store is *the only App Store available for iOS* (excluding the app stores for the handful of jailbroken devices), and, thus, a monopoly. That's why these cases exist.
People don't seem to understand this. The main difference in the analogy is that the grocery store would tell the vendor they can set their own prices, but the store will get 15%-30% for each sale. You're also only allowed to use the payment methods they accept in the store. If they don't accept Apple Pay or Amex, you HAVE to use their methods, otherwise you're walking out with no groceries. Hell, even VISA, Mastercard, etc. charge fees per transaction. That's why you see some stores (usually gas stations) giving a cash discount for gas or adding a $0.35 debit or credit fee.
That’s not a monopoly any more than “Big Macs are the only hamburgers available at McDonalds.” No court has every found that a company has a monopoly on its own product. These cases “exist” but that doesn’t mean they will be won.
So a corporation can't charge for something they either provide, or help to facilitate the provision of? This is a Brave New World, ain't it...