A response to some of the common Apple-opposing views.
I frequently see this kind of argument presented and it always baffles me how anyone still thinks it's in any way valid. I'll even use your own example to show how dumb it is.
"If you don't like the price of a hotel, you choose another hotel".
Ok, what if there are only two hotels in existence?
Well, this is the reality of a free-market economy. The laws of supply and demand sets the prices of goods and services. Even with fewer choices, customers will still make decisions on whether or not to pay for a good or service. The idea is that if the service is necessary or desired enough at the price point offered, customers will pay for the service and the business will survive. If the business does not adjust to the preferences of the customers, they will likely go out of business eventually.
(Technically, America is not a perfect free-market economy, but no real economy is; all economies are a mix of free-market and command economy, meaning there is some form of government price controls in place. The only perfect free-market economy is a hypothetical one.)
Source:
https://www.thebalance.com/america-is-not-really-a-free-market-economy-3980689
What if both charge the same price and both discriminate identically about who is allowed in their hotel?
If they charge the same price, then customers will make a decision based on another factor. The laws of supply and demand still hold.
Regarding discrimination, I am not a legal expert, but after a quick google search I learned that "the right to refuse service" in restaurants are limited by government anti-discrimination laws to prevent businesses from discriminating against protected classes. Protected classes include:
- Race or color
- National origin or citizenship status
- Religion or creed
- Sex
- Age
- Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
- Veteran status
Some states have extended protected class lists, like California for example.
If a business deems a customer disruptive or potentially problematic for reasons apart from discriminating against a protected class, they can refuse the customer service. It makes sense then that tech companies can accept or refuse developers for any reason aside from the above illegal forms of discrimination.
Not all discrimination is wrong. For example, NASA doesn't allow people with certain heart conditions to become astronauts. Also, business get to choose from an applicant pool when looking to hire a new employee. There are practical reasons for this. Does this mean that we should force NASA and all business to accept everyone for any reason on the basis of equality?
If someone with more legal experience can chime in, that would be very beneficial to the discussion because my point is a hypothetical.
Source:
https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/
What if the cost of building a hotel to compete against this duopoly is so enormous that even the biggest possible potential competitor in the industry with tens of billions of dollars at its disposal gives up trying to because it's impossible to disrupt (Microsoft)?
Was it truly impossible to disrupt? Microsoft entered the market with Windows Phone and competed with Android phones and iPhones, but consumers didn't like Windows Phone and bought Android phones and iPhones instead. What we saw was the outcome of consumer choice.
"JusT cHooSe AnotHer hOTeL".
Brilliant. Same as "just build your own app store." "Just build your own internet infrastructure".
There's a point beyond which this is not a valid argument. Apple and Google's duopoly control of 99.9% of the mobile ecosystem IS this point.
Yes, maybe there isn't a third choice, but that's life, isn't it?
I don't care how much money they invested in it, how much it costs them to maintain it, etc. Irrelevant. At a certain point, you're too powerful to be allowed continue the way you are.
Maybe we can feel this way, but it's not up to us, right?
Apple make more than enough money to drop their commissions by at least half and still be enormously profitable. And if they want to act as gatekeepers and decide who gets to have an app in their store, they need to be forced to allow anyone to publish as long as the app isn't breaking the laws of the land (not the subjective laws of their own app store) or, enable people to install an app on their iPhone from outside the app store and still access all native OS features like push notifications, sensors, etc.
But being gatekeepers is not against the laws of the land. Again, not illegal and not up to us.
Hotels are not vital to the economy, or indeed society at large.
Hotels are actually pretty important; maybe not so much anymore for the individual, but definitely for businesses. AWS hosts some 5 day conferences with as many as 60,000 attendees. AWS may be the largest, but they're not alone. Also from a consumer standpoint, consumer product launches would be impossible if not for hotels for all the press, etc.
Companies are supposed to serve people.
While this would be fantastic and probably solve a lot of problems we have in society today, this is not the case.
Contrary to popular belief, corporations are not required by law to increase shareholder value, but can exist for any lawful purpose. This includes maximizing profit or maximizing societal benefit - whatever the directors (people in charge, not the title "Director") of the company desire.
Here's a link to some very interesting readings from Cornell Law School titled "Common Misunderstandings about Corporations":
https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/a...mmon-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm
And a link to the article that directly addresses the issue, titled, "The Problem of Corporate Purpose":
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Stout_Corporate-Issues.pdf
Antitrust laws are way out of my depth and the Microsoft case was barely within my lifetime, so I'll just leave this here.
Microsoft antitrust case summary:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/microsoft-antitrust.asp
But from what I can tell, Apple hasn't broken any antitrust laws.
-Setting a "high" 30% commission is not anticompetitive, nor is Apple legally obligated to lower it to help people. As always, you are entitled to believe otherwise.
"As we were talking to some of the biggest game developers, for example, Minecraft, they said, 'I totally get why you want the user to be able to pay for it on device. But we have a lot of users coming who bought their subscription or their account somewhere else - on an Xbox, on a PC, on the web. And it's a big barrier to getting onto your store,'" Schiller said. "So we created this exception to our own rule."
-Referencing the above quote: Regarding Apple's decision to make an exception for Minecraft, it definitely seems reasonable. It's Apple's store, they can make their own rules.
-Many have mentioned that there being only one App Store and therefore one way to get your app onto the iOS platform constitutes anti-competition. However, this is the definition of competition: "Competition is the rivalry between companies selling similar products and services."
Source:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-competition-in-marketing-definition-types-quiz.html
In the smartphone product category, every Android manufacturer is competing against Apple because they all make smartphones. That's a lot of competition.
In the app category, developers on the App store are competing against each other.
Developers are only competing against Apple in the app categories that Apple makes apps for, but said developers' complaints have not been about competition.
Conclusion: Apple's app store policies cannot be legally considered anti-competitive because the policies are not geared towards other smartphone manufacturers, but towards developers - the majority of which have apps in categories which Apple does not have a competing offering.
In theory all developers could stop and Apple would suddenly be in a lot of trouble. Real life however has bills and monthly payments that need to be taken care of and people can't just quit. Apple has a lot of people by the balls. Including customers because migrating to Android (or the other way around) is not that easy if you depend on certain apps or features.
But people CAN just quit. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying it's not a stressful situation, but everyone deals with a similar situation - who knows at what moment in our lives something could happen and we could fall on financial hardship? Why is it Apple's fault or responsibility?
Saying that if you don't like it you should do your own thing is like saying that if you don't like working for/with Amazon you should open you own store.
It's an option. Many successful businesses were started because the founder(s) didn't like what was available on the market. Perhaps even Apple can be considered one of them.
In Summary: Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are just that - opinions. We live in a world where opinions are not reality. Opinions also don't hold up at all in a legal setting, and when we do a casual review of what the various laws and definitions do cover, Apple isn't doing anything illegal or wrong. Many users have also expressed that Apple's policies allow peace of mind and a better experience compared to Android. We will see what happens as the hearings unfold.
