Isn't this what's been termed as a business model and the cost of doing business?
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.
Tim Cook Says App Store Would Become a 'Flea Market' if Third-Party Payment Systems Were Allowed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Serious question... iPhone is Apple creation. Please educate me why. Why is Apple having to justify App Store policies payment practices, iMessage to the government, etc... they created the platform should they not control it?
Last I checked (which I have to admit, is a few years ago) Microsoft charges quite a bit for their development tools.
IMHO, comparing the various platforms are akin to comparing apples to oranges (pun intended.) Different companies decide on different business models that they think will maximise their profit. For all we know (which we don't really), Apple may be subsidizing Macs with profits from iPhones. That's the beauty of having various successful products in a vertically integrated company.
Any 'for profit' company don't just produce something without thinking about how that thing that they produced will be monetised. Even in the Linux space, this is true, where RedHat's business model is based on services.
I would love to see that happen because it would give governments across the world proof that Apple is abusing their market position since there would be no other way for iDevice users to get or update their apps, rendering their iDevices practically useless.
EDIT...
This brings up another issue: If Apple went bankrupt (not that it would happen anytime soon) and had to shut down operations, how would iDevice owners get apps if the only way to get them is through Apple's App Store?
Last edited:
If purchased directly from Apple. Phones sold via carriers come with their own set of rules (which I found out recently)
Would it though, Tim? It's no different than Apple wanting to include Apple Pay as a payment option on any and every website. Nobody as a problem with payment options not JUST being the standard Visa, MasterCard, Discover anymore...but also PayPal, Apple Pay, AmazonPay, etc.
The ONLY reason Apple truly has an issue with any of this is because they see how much money they can make off fees. And 1, 2, 1000 customer's paying through Epic's portal are 1, 2, 1000 customers not paying fees to Apple.
The ONLY reason Apple truly has an issue with any of this is because they see how much money they can make off fees. And 1, 2, 1000 customer's paying through Epic's portal are 1, 2, 1000 customers not paying fees to Apple.
Let's replace a few words and see if you still feel the same way.
We can also substitute Apple with AT&T and Standard Oil.
Say every developer wants their own payment system... You'll have to enter your payment details that many times. Oh, and again, if they decided to change their provider down the road. You might not have a problem with this, but not many people want to deal with multiple payment systems.
You want one payment system that you can use everwhere.
Because Apple and Google have a monopoly on smartphones and Apple is abusing it’s power.
If you are a developer for smartphones, you cannot ignore iOS due to it’s marketshare, so Apple knows it can do whatever they want and they are exploiting this power.
Atleast Google allows people to install software outside of Google play.
Hopefully Apple would put xProtect or something like that if Epic wins, I seriously don’t want any malware from 3rd party app stores on my iPhone.
The power to opt-in to a voluntary developer program? Seems like the antithesis of a monopoly.
it is not voluntary as Apple has a monopoly (actually a duopoly by Google and Apple) on smartphones.
You got to be on Android and iOS as a developer for smartphones.
So what you're saying is that Apple literally controls 90 to 95% of *all* cellphone production? Or that Apple was given a legal monopoly for 7 decades?
Interesting take with MS and IE.
A few things are needed to make an antitrust case. You need a monopoly power AND abuse of that power. Monopoly power alone is not sufficient.
In the case of MS, they controlled only Windows but it was by far the most used OS of the time. MS abused that monopoly position by 1) Insisting that OEMs had Windows pre-installed from the factory and the OEM'S receiving a discount in order to do so. 2) Sanctioning said OEM's if they didn't preinstall windows. 3) Installing Internet Explorer as standard AND actively making it difficult to either install other browsers such as Netscape, or they had technical limitations that IE wasn't subject to.
The massive difference in this case is Apple owns the hardware, the OS and the software. They don't sell to anybody else and aren't forcing other device manufacturers to install their OS, their App Store or their Software.
The very fact that Apple owns the entire platform makes this a literal Apples to Oranges comparison. In antitrust law, it is completely legal to have a monopoly on your own products - in fact, it is expected. Of course Apple have a monopoly on the iOS App Store - it is THEIR App Store. Of course Apple have monopoly power over iOS - it's their OS.
Now if Apple were selling iOS to other device manufacturers, giving them incentives to pre-install it and sanctions for not installing it and then placing technical limitations on competing App Stores, then yes, there'd probably be an antitrust case.
On the flip side, if MS made it's own hardware and shipped it with Windows and IE installed and became a 75% power whilst not selling the OS or IE to anybody else, that would be completely legal.
Gaining a monopoly through better products, services or business acumen is not illegal.
Last edited:
What's the big deal? Why must Epic Games be allowed to have their own in-app payment system? I bought youtube premium through the app store and paid for it 1x before I realized I had to pay the 30% apple tax. So I discontinued that in-app purchase and just buy youtube premium directly from google. NO PROBLEM!
I'm sure Epic Games can sell all the add-ons, skins, power ups and V-bucks or whatever they are hawking through a regular website. Every kid has a smartphone and most of them have it sitting right next to them as they are gaming. Or, better yet, they can easily jump from Fortnite on the ipad to a web browser and just buy whatever they want directly from Epic Games. What am I missing?
I'm sure Epic Games can sell all the add-ons, skins, power ups and V-bucks or whatever they are hawking through a regular website. Every kid has a smartphone and most of them have it sitting right next to them as they are gaming. Or, better yet, they can easily jump from Fortnite on the ipad to a web browser and just buy whatever they want directly from Epic Games. What am I missing?
What I'm saying is Apple controls 100% of app distribution. The way Apple's businesses are vertically integrated means they control everything
Vertical Integration Works for Apple -- But It Won’t for Everyone
In an effort to spur growth and attract consumers through a more seamless user experience, tech companies -- including Google, Amazon and Oracle -- are acquiring new business units in order to become more vertically integrated. It is an approach that for years has been successfully employed by...
And just like how AT&T was broken up due to their abuse of their vertically integrated market position, Apple may one day face the same consequence.
Also add all the antitrust and unfair advantages lawsuits “because Apple something something and we can’t compete, that’s why we have a POS system” (read POS as desired).
I agree.
Often times I see folks confusing or equating wants with needs, especially with the younger generations.
What I'm saying is Apple controls 100% of app distribution. The way Apple's businesses are vertically integrated means they control everything
Vertical Integration Works for Apple -- But It Won’t for Everyone
In an effort to spur growth and attract consumers through a more seamless user experience, tech companies -- including Google, Amazon and Oracle -- are acquiring new business units in order to become more vertically integrated. It is an approach that for years has been successfully employed by...knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu
And just like how AT&T was broken up due to their abuse of their vertically integrated market position, Apple may one day face the same consequence.
AT&T was using it's profits from one of it's monopoly subsidiaries (Western Electric) to subsidise the cost of it's network. This meant that their network costs were comparatively cheaper than anybody else's. This is against US Anti-Trust Laws.
Now, if Apple were taking it's profits from it's services and subsidising it's MacBooks and selling them for $500 each, then yeah, that is against anti-trust laws because their competitors have no way of competing.
Another Apples to Oranges comparison and easily discounted by a 2 second internet search.
Last edited:
Curious why Android isn't the preferred or more profitable market for developers, seeing as Google Play allows for in-App market places, allows for separate 3rd party app markets themselves, along with unrestricted side loading - so that developers can just sell direct to android customers. Especially considering that 4 out of 5 of mobile phones are running some android OS variant.
As for your Standard Oil example, they literally bought up all their competitors in the same market which is against US antitrust laws.
The Court concluded that a contract offended the Sherman Act only if the contract restrained trade "unduly"—that is if the contract resulted in one of the three consequences of monopoly that the Court identified (higher prices, reduced output, and reduced quality). A broader meaning, the Court suggested, would ban normal and usual contracts, and would thus infringe liberty of contract
If Apple purchased Samsung, Google, LG, Motorola, Huwaei, Oppo, Sony, Erickson and Nokia, then yeah, there'd probably be an Antitrust case.
But they haven't, so yet another Apples to Oranges comparison.
Last edited: