Tim Cook Says Apple 'Should be Scrutinized' But Disputes Claims Company is a Monopoly

[ikramerica]

Saying Walmart shouldn't sell goods is just avoiding the question.

There is nothing stopping people from shopping at Target or any other store. Walmart doesn't take a 30% cut either.

You know there is a problem when Walmart treats their suppliers better than you.

There is nothing stopping you from buying an android phone. It is a viable alternative with greater marketshare.

The real question is whether Apple can legally ban apps that “replicate features” Apple provides or sells. Honestly that policy may be the only one that is anti-competitive by the FTC standard and its easy enough to change if forced to.

 

[realtuner]

Did you read it? Here's a snipped from the linked FTC webpage:

"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power."

Does Apple have the ability to "raise prices" or "exclude competitors"? The answer to that question, I think, may be yes when applied specifically to smartphone/tablet apps.

They can certainly exclude competitors if they want to. I'm less clear about what is meant by "raising prices" - that's a question for a lawyer.

Nice of you to cherry pick a specific section and try to formulate your argument around it.

The methods a company would use to raise prices go like this:

• Apple introduces Apple Music.
• Apple prices Apple Music at a very low price of $3.99.
• Spotify can’t compete at that price and the lowest they can go is $7.99 to try and keep their business afloat.
• Apple bleeds money for a year while signing up record number of users.
• Spotify loses customers and eventually goes out of business.
• With no competitor, and a monopoly on streaming music, Apple can now raise prices to whatever they want.

Do you have examples of Apple using this behavior in The App Store to exclude competitors?

 

[curtvaughan]

And yet, Steve Jobs handpicked Cook as his replacement.

Guess Jobs wasn't as smart as many of you think he was.

I have no idea what motivated Jobs to pick Cook - perhaps he was prescient enough to see that Cook's brand of corporate leadership would be needed to take Apple into the future. Founder/CEO types flourish best in making startup companies successful - once established, stability and growth of profit seem to take precedence over innovation and entrepreneurship. At the time he stepped down and selected Cook, he was likely focused more on deteriorating health and personal issues than on the future of Apple. Maybe someone in his family or a close friend will someday lend some light in that regard. Right now, it's all speculation.

 

[Carnegie]

To help the debate on whether or not Apple has a monopoly or acts in a monopolistic fashion, here's the definition from the FTC:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

Btw, I believe currently has 39% market share in the USA.

Whether Apple has monopoly power depends, in large part, on the relevant market which is identified - e.g., as being computer apps, or mobile apps, or iOS apps.

Unfortunately I think, given the way relevant markets are identified under U.S. law, iOS apps (or iOS app distribution services) could be considered to be a relevant market.

 

[skinned66]

I'm impressed Tim said it was fair to be scrutinized. I like him a bit more.

 

[locoboi187]

Tim Cook was the worst choice ever. Apple has failed to innovate since the passing of Steve Jobs.

Did you even watch the video? Dude is fighting for our privacy and this isn't even about who's innovating what...

 

[code-m]

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.

Microsoft is in this list as one simply cannot call a company a monopoly for having a store that serves its ecosystem.
One can install apps outside MacApp Store or MicrosoftApp Store. This is common practice.

You still have the option to to side load apps on iOS for longer than a few days, more like 364 days and need to reinstall it. Most apps that are actively supported by developers are updated more than once a year. Both Google and Apple permit side loading apps, whatever time limit restrictions remain that is up to the owner of the specific App Store. Those developer account memberships fees should be reduced to free if possible. I believe Google offers it up for free, however Apple is trying to to have the flood gates open with garbage or spyware apps being submitted. Such apps have passed they review process many times in the past.

 

[Breaking Good]

Free markets are the best thing we have... ...and create the most wealth and opportunity for human flourishing compared to other systems. They produce all sorts of difficult challenges and ups and downs. Free markets are the best compared to alternatives they are not utopias. But their track record of raising humanity from poverty is so amazing and the track record of many other systems is so terrible that we praise free markets.

I agree with everything you wrote above.

No they don’t overlook that. Free markets are ... ...the most moral system we have...

Yes, "free marketeers" do overlook the pain created when free markets work because while free markets are many things, they are not moral as you believe. This is why government regulation is a necessary evil.

Only weirdos and communists believe in utopia.

I can assure you that I am not a communist or even a progressive and I don't believe in a utopia. As for being a weirdo, it depends on who you ask.

 

[Huntn]

I would not call the Apple Store a monopoly by any means. It's their store, and they have competition, Google, Microsoft, etc.

 

[Jimmy James]

In the way Nike stores are a monopoly.

 

[ikramerica]

But... Apple doesn't have any control of the Google or other Android stores.

Macys has 100% control of all Macys. Nobody else runs a macys. Macys decides what products to carry, and dont let other companies come in an sell to macys customers. While some products are store brand or “only at macys” most products are available elsewhere.

Now of course Macys doesnt sell an exclusive Macys body that you must wear their clothes on, but Apple doesnt control the phone market either, just a non-monopoly sized share of it.

 

[Jakewilk]

"What we do with Apple News product is we pick top stories, we have people doing it. And so I do worry about people thinking like machines. Not machines thinking like people."

And this is one reason I will never use/watch/consume anything from Apple News. Apple's political leanings aside, I prefer to pick my top news and not have some other entity do it for me.

I think if you used the service you would find that it is quite unbiased

 

[blacktape242]

Tim for president.

no
[doublepost=1559748988][/doublepost]

Tim Cook: *cures cancer*

Conservatives at Mac Rumors: Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!

was that recently on cnn or something?

 

[macfacts]

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.

If a PS4 game was sold in a physical Sony store vs bestbuy, Sony's total cut would be larger.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly of the ios
app store because of the approval process. It isn't a monopoly of iOS app store because the 30% is the same as google play store. It isn't a monopoly of iOS app store because Apple charges some fees. Apple has the only iOS app store, that's why it is a monopoly of iOS app stores. Add the anticompetitive rules and that's what makes it illegal.

And Sony have 100% of the Sony PS store, and MS have 100% of the xbox store, and only Nintendo can make nintendo DS games etc.. etc.. etc..

Would be a problem if Apple was the only phone you could buy..

Sony may have to only digital PS4 store but not the only PS4 game store. Bestbuy sells ps4 games too.

Usually lawyers tell you to shut up and dont talk to the media if you're being sued or in the middle of a court case. Seems like Tim loves the sound of his voice. Obvious that Tim wants to sway public opinion before jury selection.

 

[Beachguy]

Let's ignore the sales numbers! Let's ignore the customer satisfaction surveys! Let's ignore the cold, hard facts because netdoc66 and all the other goofy internet trolls have spoken! Tim Cook is destroying Apple!

And let's ignore the YEARS between updates for Macs of all levels, where we were being asked to pay the same for several years old Apple tech that we did when it was brand new. (Would you like to buy a Mac Pro? A Macbook? Apple has them waiting for you right now. And remember, that Monday Pro announcement won't be here for 6 or more months to replace a machine which was released almost 6 years ago. SIX!!! Or the Macbook, almost 2 1/2 years ago. And don't forget how long other Macs were allowed to stay stale, but at full freaking price!)

Let's ignore the cold, hard facts because TSE has spoken!!! Tim Cook is the second coming of Jesus/Mohammed/Confucius... all rolled into a Wall Street savior.
[doublepost=1559749209][/doublepost]

Tim Cook: *cures cancer*

Conservatives at Mac Rumors: Waaaaaaaaaaah!!!

Donald Trump: *cures cancer*ends world hunger*announces full worldwide employment*
Liberals at Macrumors: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

Now that your lunacy has been balanced, can we keep politics OUT of the discussion? There are enough haters on the internet in appropriate places. We don't need them here.

 

[DVD9]

Look, that's a machine for people who need fast, and very high quality, execution. If you're editing a 3D video, a big Hollywood film, a symphony orchestra recording with a thousand tracks, this is what you need, and the price, which might be $50,000 fully tricked out, is peanuts to a big production house, and this is who it's made for. The monitor is a third of the price a Sony Reference monitor costs-- $23,000 for starters. And unless you need a 1,000 nit screen -- you don't.

He gets that.

The issue is the Mini is a sick joke and there is nothing inbetween the Mini and a $6,000 Pro. My two desktops are connected to my 4k TV. One is a NUC and the other is a new Dell Alienware Aurora R8 with a liquid cooled overclockable 8 core I7 and new Nvida RTX card, 256GB NVME drive and 16GB RAM that cost just under $1,600 to deliver to my front door.

Apple just isn't in this game at all. They offer nothing.

That was the OP's point.

 

[TSE]

And let's ignore the YEARS between updates for Macs of all levels, where we were being asked to pay the same for several years old Apple tech that we did when it was brand new. (Would you like to buy a Mac Pro? A Macbook? Apple has them waiting for you right now. And remember, that Monday Pro announcement won't be here for 6 or more months to replace a machine which was released almost 6 years ago. SIX!!! Or the Macbook, almost 2 1/2 years ago. And don't forget how long other Macs were allowed to stay stale, but at full freaking price!)

Let's ignore the cold, hard facts because TSE and all the other Cook trolls have spoken!!! Tim Cook is the second coming of Jesus/Mohammed/Confucius... all rolled into a Wall Street savior.

I am not an ardent Tim Cook supporter. I do not think he is the world's greatest man. I do not think Apple is perfect. Check my post history - I am extremely critical of Apple. I've called the current design iteration of the MacBook Pro since 2016 one of the worst product lineups in Apple history. I'm also not a fan of him bringing in those Hollywood loons to promote products and tell us it's our job to save the environment.

But let's be clear: Steve Jobs was not perfect. Steve Jobs had plenty of failures as well... do your own research and you'll find plenty. And while our opinions on Tim Cook are subjective, there's one thing that isn't: numbers. And numbers indicate more people than ever are purchasing Macs. More people than ever are happy with Macs. And Apple is making more money than ever. That is simply proof that Tim Cook is fact not the worst CEO ever. The Apple Watch. The evolution of the iPad into such a powerful device. The introduction of the best Mac Pro / PowerMac of all time. Airpods being the standard of headphones in the entire world. Apple Services growing beyond anything Steve had ever done. Plenty of positives of Tim being capable. So let's stop making easy digs for cheap "thumbs up" on forums, and instead start looking at the facts.

 

[Beachguy]

I am not an ardent Tim Cook supporter. I do not think he is the world's greatest man. I do not think Apple is perfect. Check my post history - I am extremely critical of Apple. I've called the current design iteration of the MacBook Pro since 2016 one of the worst product lineups in Apple history. I'm also not a fan of him bringing in those Hollywood loons to promote products and tell us it's our job to save the environment.

But let's be clear: Steve Jobs was not perfect. Steve Jobs had plenty of failures as well... do your own research and you'll find plenty. And while our opinions on Tim Cook are subjective, there's one thing that isn't: numbers. And numbers indicate more people than ever are purchasing Macs. More people than ever are happy with Macs. And Apple is making more money than ever. That is simply proof that Tim Cook is fact not the worst CEO ever. The Apple Watch. The evolution of the iPad into such a powerful device. The introduction of the best Mac Pro / PowerMac of all time. Airpods being the standard of headphones in the entire world. Apple Services growing beyond anything Steve had ever done. Plenty of positives of Tim being capable. So let's stop making easy digs for cheap "thumbs up" on forums, and instead start looking at the facts.

And yet that was not your post.

 

[78Bandit]

Nice of you to cherry pick a specific section and try to formulate your argument around it.

The methods a company would use to raise prices go like this:

• Apple introduces Apple Music.
• Apple prices Apple Music at a very low price of $3.99.
• Spotify can’t compete at that price and the lowest they can go is $7.99 to try and keep their business afloat.
• Apple bleeds money for a year while signing up record number of users.
• Spotify loses customers and eventually goes out of business.
• With no competitor, and a monopoly on streaming music, Apple can now raise prices to whatever they want.

Do you have examples of Apple using this behavior in The App Store to exclude competitors?

There are, of course, other ways for a company to raise prices. Something like this:

• Apple introduces iBooks.
• Apple publicly states that all electronic book prices will be the same regardless of platform but doesn't specify how.
• Apple acts as ring leader in getting all major book publishers to simultaneously execute agency agreements with ebook distributors where the publishers set the consumer prices. The agreements require price parity across all platforms and the publishers act in concert to ensure prices are consistent among themselves.
• With such a conspiracy, ebook prices increase from under $10 to close to $15 overnight.

 

[TSE]

And yet that was not your post.

My original post isn't defending Tim Cook. The point of my post is to criticize the dramatic, easy route for getting a cheap pop on an Apple forum by comparing anything to "how Steve would have done it" - even though he himself said that now that he's dead, it's time to move on and not do that. The point of my post is to criticize the theatrical "Tim Cook is the worst CEO of all time" nonsense, when he's clearly not.

 

[macfacts]

The methods a company would use to raise prices go like this:

• Apple introduces Apple Music.
• Apple prices Apple Music at a very low price of $9.99.
• Spotify can’t compete at that price and the lowest they can go is $13.99 to try and keep their business afloat.
• Apple bleeds money for a year while signing up record number of users.
• Spotify loses customers and eventually goes out of business.
• With no competitor, and a monopoly on streaming music, Apple can now raise prices to whatever they want.

That's exactly what is happening here but the prices are different. Apple music hasn't made a profit yet.

 

[kaneda]

How about do the same in China?

 

[lederermc]

There are two types of monopolies, 1) A Horizontal Monopoly is when a company controls a single aspect of a market place. An example would be Qualcomm's dominance in the 5G chip market. 2) A Vertical Monopoly is when a company has control over all aspects for a portion of a market place. An example is Comcast's ownership of NBC which produces TV shows and distribute via its cable system AND AT&T which owns Time Warner (HBO) and distributes via DirecTV. Apple has neither types of monopolies. Apple is careful to avoid the appearance of a vertical monopoly and thus scrutiny. If the App Store was not open to 3rd party developers and if you could not buy 3rd party services from Pandora, Amazon, Dropbox, Netflix etc. and if you could not buy 3rd party accessories, then Apple would have a Vertical Monopoly. I am more concerned about Comcast and AT&T's vertical monopolies because many geographic areas are only serviced by these two companies.

 

[realtuner]

That's exactly what is happening here but the prices are different. Apple music hasn't made a profit yet.

Two falsehoods in a single sentence. Bravo.

Spotify pricing used to be higher, so some might argue that they had to lower their pricing because of the price of Apple Music. Except for the fact others (like Google Music) lowered their prices BEFORE Apple Music even existed so that theory is 100% false.

Spotify has subscribers sign up through their website. So Apple takes 0% of their price, which means Spotify gets to keep 100% of their subscription fees. So Apple isn't benefiting from Spotify in any way.

Apple Music loses money? You have a source for this? Or did you (like everyone else) take a Tim Cook quote out of context to draw a conclusion?
[doublepost=1559751778][/doublepost]

There are, of course, other ways for a company to raise prices. Something like this:

• Apple introduces iBooks.
• Apple publicly states that all electronic book prices will be the same regardless of platform but doesn't specify how.
• Apple acts as ring leader in getting all major book publishers to simultaneously execute agency agreements with ebook distributors where the publishers set the consumer prices. The agreements require price parity across all platforms and the publishers act in concert to ensure prices are consistent among themselves.
• With such a conspiracy, ebook prices increase from under $10 to close to $15 overnight.

Try again. This is about The App Store, not book pricing. For your ridiculous analogy to hold you'd have to show that Apple is colluding with some App developers to set prices to harm other App developers. Do you have any source for this?

 

[Defthand]

The AppStore is a curated environment designed to protect the system integrity. If anyone could upload imagine the junk and security risks. It’s proven difficult at times when app devs put in workarounds.

If I didn’t like the security model I’m not locked. If an app doesn’t get written for Apple devices I can buy other hardware. AppStore will survive on merit while users find value.

One only has to look at the MacOS platform to see how an OS without constraints can be reasonably secure, champions individual tastes and ownership, and doesn't interfere with software innovation and the economics of development. There is a MacOS app store as well, but it is not a mandatory portal. It is not the sole resource for MacOS apps. In fact, it is not popular with many premium app developers and users. Nevertheless, it is there as an option. It is satisfactory for small pony apps or first-time devs with no advertising budget. It is convenient for users who are too nervous or clueless to seek apps in the wild.

No one is proposing that Apple abandon its iOS app store. No one is suggesting that iOS apps sold outside of Apple's app store shouldn't comply with Apple's registration and validation requirements. But Apple's remaining rules are arbitrary. For one, if Apple wants its app store to be the sole portal for app purchases and app updates for the sake of having a selling feature, then the app store itself should be sponsored by Apple. Why should software vendors adjust their pricing or margin to use a feature that is a benefit to Apple (promotes the hardware and ecosystem) and its customers (convenience and peace of mind)? More oft than not, you actually pay for the feature by paying more than what the vendor typically charges directly. Perhaps, if Apple were required to divulge their surcharge beside the app's actual cost, users would be less supportive of Apple's justifications, especially when that surcharge is for subscription content services that Apple has no active role in delivering.