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 Apple 'Should be Scrutinized' But Disputes Claims Company is a Monopoly
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem is margin. The reason why Apple partnered with LG was because LG and all other Display manufacture can "afford" lower margin, since everything single part of their business is low margin business, comparatively speaking.
Had Apple make their own LG Retina display of the same thing with their branding on it, Apple would have to charge their usual ~50% Gross Margin. which would increase its price to anywhere between $1899 to $2099.
And People will complain about the price of that Display again.
Now you will ask, why is it $1299 when all other monitor are much lower price? The 27" 5K Panel was once used by Dell as well, and even dell had to price it around the price $1200. The panel is likely to be expensive for lots of reason,
1. PPI. Apple seems to be fixed on this ~217 PPI, even the 6K are the same panel being cut in larger size. ( Same PPI but instead of 27", you get 32", and that is where you get 6K ) This PPI is only being used by Apple, which means it is a low volume products, and as with any low volume product it is bond to be expensive.
2. The Panel quality seems to differ from other mainstream LCD Panel. It could likely be yield , or some different manufacturing were used.
3. Higher PPI also requires better backlight, that is assuming you want the same or better quality monitor, this pushes up the cost as well.
But it is also worth mentioning, all the monitor on the market are properly good enough for majority of people. May be Apple couldn't see any value to they could add within those price range apart from their Logo.
Apple has never been about making all their products “affordable” to everyone. Are you old enough to remember what the original Mac cost in 1984? It was $2,495. That’s over $6,000 in today’s dollars.
you don't need the $6k display. the people that pay $40k for a display need them.
[doublepost=1559719733][/doublepost]
AirPods? Give it a rest.
[doublepost=1559720459][/doublepost]
Those physical ps4 games must be approved by Sony before they can release it to Best Buy.
Game companies have to pay $$$ to Sony for every single copy sold by Best Buy.
Games made by Sony don't need to pay that $$$ because Sony owns the platform.
Tell me how Apple is a monopoly and Sony isn't?
Developers have to pay Apple/Sony for development kits
Developers have to go through Apple/Sony for approval
Developers have to pay Apple/Sony for every single copy sold
Apple/Sony don't have to pay fees for developing for their own platform
Last edited:
Thats because they invested and built it themselves. No one else has a right to that.
Apple is not a monopoly by the definition. Yet consider this: The new Apple Car will run only on Gasolne purchased from the Apple gas stations and you will not be able to buy fuel from any other gas station. Oh, the Apple gas will have a 30% Apple tax on it as well. It is a locked system.
Don’t like it? Then don’t buy the Apple Car.
Don’t like it? Then don’t buy the Apple Car.
The argument, as far as I know hasn’t ever been that Apple itself is a monopoly, but that on Apple shouldn't be able to monopolize iOS.
There are flaws with calling Apple a monopolizer in this way - namely in that the same legal case precedence that provides for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft to “monopolize” their own video game hardware systems (Playstation, xbox, Switch, etc) allows Apple to “monopolize” their own, too.
While you can buy PS4, Xbox, or Switch games in different retail stores vs only online though PSN, Xbox live, or Nintendo’s eShop - those physical copies of games on store shelves don’t appear there without license agreements, payments, and restrictions on content in games. All of which stems from a late 70's early 80's lawsuit between Atari and Activision. Activision (being ex-atari employees) wrote video games for Atari's system. Atari said, you can't do that and sued. Atari lost hardcore and got absolutely nothing. However, the end result was: If you want to prevent development or want to monetize development then you have to implement code lockout.
Now this doesn't mean businesses can be anti-competitive. But, the code lockout, or monopolization of the businesses own system or own hardware isn't illegal in and of itself.
Apple has a monopoly on iOS app stores. No other stores sell iOS apps.
Sony doesn't have a monopoly on PS4 game stores. Sony doesn't own a every PS4 game store.
Any sports venue or concert is a monopoly by that logic. A monopoly is when you control all of a category of a market. In the case of the App Store because all devices it resides in are not monopolies (iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch) it cant be a monopoly. Yea you have to go through App Store but if you don’t like that then you buy a different phone/whatever. Also you can always use a web app.
Apple could have easily tanked after losing Jobs but it didn’t. Tim has kept the company going and we can always say ‘Steve wouldn’t do this’. And we are probably right about some of it.
Apple has still done some great things. Look at AirPods, the iPhone X display and what is becoming of the iPad and Apple Watch. You can’t say Apple hasn’t innovated. They’re not breakthroughs like the iPhone but they’re certainly innovative.
I’m sorry but the level of delusion in some of these posts is on another level.
As a senior product owner in a large software base company, I can categorically state it is a monopoly. Period.
Why?
We cannot publish anything for iOS consumers to download without the approval from Apple.
They make up and change the rules on every submission and have the final say on our software going live.
We have no other choice to use in regard to publishing software.
Those who are slightly older may remember the IE / Microsoft scandal where MS we’re preloading it’s browser and defaulting it to IE? Guess what?! Apple do exactly the same meaning PWA apps require a Chrome download and it’s not simple for the average user to change the default choice.
Additionally Apple control all the MFi certification, W1/2 chips and they also control API’s that for example don’t allow me to search for music on Spotify when I use CarPlay but it’ll happily allow me to search Apple Music (even if I’m not subscribed to it).
This is all categorically controlling and monopolistic behaviour.
If the US doesn’t find Apple guilty of this, I’m confident the EU commission will.
As a senior product owner in a large software base company, I can categorically state it is a monopoly. Period.
Why?
We cannot publish anything for iOS consumers to download without the approval from Apple.
They make up and change the rules on every submission and have the final say on our software going live.
We have no other choice to use in regard to publishing software.
Those who are slightly older may remember the IE / Microsoft scandal where MS we’re preloading it’s browser and defaulting it to IE? Guess what?! Apple do exactly the same meaning PWA apps require a Chrome download and it’s not simple for the average user to change the default choice.
Additionally Apple control all the MFi certification, W1/2 chips and they also control API’s that for example don’t allow me to search for music on Spotify when I use CarPlay but it’ll happily allow me to search Apple Music (even if I’m not subscribed to it).
This is all categorically controlling and monopolistic behaviour.
If the US doesn’t find Apple guilty of this, I’m confident the EU commission will.
How is selling a game through best buy ANY DIFFERENT than through the PSN store? You still need to go through Sony approval process either way and you still need to pay Sony their cut for every single copy sold.
The game is the same whether you get it from PSN or Best Buy. Sony makes the exact same amount out of every single copy sold.
Everyone and their cat keeps on whining how Apple is not innovating and letting the Pro Mac market die, how they don't care about Pro customers and the moment they deliver a real Pro machine with Pro display whining doesn't stop, just changes the frequency to even more annoying one. ****ing ridiculous.
Tim Cook doesn't cure cancer, he causes it. Cancer of the wallet, anyway. Thousand-dollar monitor arms, $1500 phones, $4000 laptops, $400 MP3 players, etc, etc, etc.
You don't have to be conservative to balk at Tim Cook's Apple, only reasonably fiscally aware.
Amazon's or Samsung's app stores are alternatives to PlayStore.
There are a lot of those on Android.
I don't understand why Microsoft is there.
Also in order to sideload apps on iOS you need a developer account and if it's a free account apps only work for a few days. On Android such restrictions don't exist when sideloading apps.
That's ridiculous.
Stories in newspapers have already been picked by someone else (editors in most cases).
While having another layer on top of that is not ideal, it's still far, far better to have that layer be human rather than an algorithm.
Guess, how the PS4 games get into "PS4 game stores"? You have to go though Sony. No seriously. Explain how you are going to get any physical disk retail PS4 game to function on a PS4 without agreeing to a licensing deal with Sony. You have to agree to Sony's terms, you have to pay Sony's cut, and use their distribution methods to get your game to appear on store shelves. Perhaps you as a developer can sell your work to a publisher - but the publisher, again, has to go to Sony to get the game on the PS4. The publisher in-turn, is going to make you pay for that connection.
If you want to sell on PSN - do you have a 3rd party PNS game store you can talk to? Nope. You need to talk to Sony.
All roads lead to Sony - Sony monopolizes their PS4. So is this illegal / anti-competitive?
[doublepost=1559732421][/doublepost]
Do you know why this is? It's actually already been settle since the early 1980's.
That was actually quite a different thing - What was the outcome from Microsoft using their defacto market monopoly (mind you which Apple does not enjoy) to push IE adoption? Was that ultimately found to be illegal?
Isn't 80% of the mobile phone market Android? It's got everything you want - better hardware, better operating system, freedom to customize, freedom to sideload, 3rd party app stores, less phone notching, etc. You don't even have to use any App store, at all. Just sell directly off your website to customers. Why are you spending any time, personally yourself in that eco system, let alone programming for it. What's wrong with all those advantages that Android provides that makes iOS worth any of your time, personally or business-wise.
Ask yourself, why is it only now being discussed? Or, possibly has this already happened, been discussed, and is settled law? Yes. Yes, it has. What is actually ultimately being asked here is whether the preceding case law precedence from 40 years ago needs to be reviewed and / or scoped.
The monopoly that Apple has, in and of itself, is not illegal. However, being anti-competitive is.
Last edited:
That's right they've been neglecting Pro for a while and then start naming more Pro products which is a joke and now they they're begging money from Pros because the sales is going down.
