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

[Marshall73]

And apple has 100% of the current iOS app stores market. No other company runs an iOS app store.

Microsoft has 100% of the xbox store and take a % cut of physical games and you can't release a game on xbox without Microsofts authorisation

Sony has 100% of the PSN store and take a % cut of physical games and you can't release a game on PS without Sonys authorisation

Nintendo has 100% of the Nintendo store and take a % cut of physical games and you can't release a game on Nintendo without Nintendos authorisation.

So, they are all monopolies to then?

 

[timber]

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?

That looks remarkably similar to Disney's currently known plans...

 

[Defthand]

Except iOS has a rich and criminally underused set of APIs for running web apps. In fact, most people don't realize that you can save any URL to a web app to your home screen as if it were an app, and launching it from that icon runs it in its own discrete memory space just like a real app. If developers don't want anything to do with the App Store, they have the option to create their apps that way. There are many out there. One of my favorite weather apps is a web app. The App Store is not the only path to publishing software on iOS, therefore it is not a monopoly.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the App Store is a monopoly, even though it doesn't actually meet the definition. The problem after that is that it's not actually illegal to be a monopoly. What's illegal is being a monopoly and exercising your power in that regard to unfairly crush competitors. Beyond making the case that the App Store is a monopoly, you will have to show how Apple is abusing that.

Yours is the most enlightening explanation of monopolies that I've encountered. Perhaps we're arguing the wrong issue (myself included) with Apple's app store. Even if Apple's practice is not illustrative of a monopoly abuse, there is still something unreasonable about Apple's conditions that both devs and users intuit.
[doublepost=1559752788][/doublepost]

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.

Fascinating clarification.

 

[charlituna]

Apple is far from being a monopoly.

Many folks falsely believe that Apple products are a market but in fact the market is personal computing devices. And when you actually gather up all the companies making computers, tablets, phones etc, Apple really isn’t that big. Even if you slice it off into sections like OS or just computers or just phones, Apple still isn’t really that big.

 

[coolfactor]

That's fine and all but what about these really expensive products?

I hope Apple can make products and lower price points for regular consumers.

Like a display that doesn't cost $6,000

A display that is 27" for $1,299 retina quality would be great.

Monopoly and pricing are two entirely different topics, although a company could use low or no-cost pricing to attract customers to maintain a monolopy. Clearly Apple does not do that.

The Pro display is *designed* and *intended* for big-dollar industry, not the average consumer (you and me). Apple has made that clear. It's a high-performance monitor that actually comes in at a lower price than the monitors it competes with — professional reference monitors.

 

[macfacts]

Many folks falsely believe that Apple products are a market but in fact the market is personal computing devices. And when you actually gather up all the companies making computers, tablets, phones etc, Apple really isn’t that big. Even if you slice it off into sections like OS or just computers or just phones, Apple still isn’t really that big.

Who is complaining apple has a monopoly in personal computer devices? The complaints are about the iOS app store.

 

[farewelwilliams]

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.

Sony no longer has retail stores. They phased it all out in 2017. Your point about a physical Sony store is flat out wrong. They have booths inside bigger stores, but they don't handle sales.

Your second part is hard to read as it has grammatical errors or is missing some words you may have deleted. I don't know what you're trying to say.

 

[macfacts]

Sony no longer has retail stores. They phased it all out in 2017. Your point about a physical Sony store is flat out wrong. They have booths inside bigger stores, but they don't handle sales.

Your second part is hard to read as it has grammatical errors or is missing some words you may have deleted. I don't know what you're trying to say.

But when Sony did have physical stores, their total cut would have been more cause they run the store.

Second part of my message is about all the rules you listed that Sony and apple has as well. All those rules are not why apple is considered as having a monopoly on iOS app stores.

 

[bobmepp]

It's probably as ridiculous as the fact the courts are investigating if it's a monopoly. Let the results of the court dictate if it's ridiculous.

Courts don’t investigate, they hear testimony and read documents provided and they are not infallible - they come to erroneous conclusions all the time.

 

[farewelwilliams]

But when Sony did have physical stores, their total cut would have been more cause they run the store.

Second part of my message is about all the rules you listed that Sony and apple has as well. All those rules are not why apple is considered as having a monopoly on iOS app stores.

They only had a few Playstation stores back in 2009. You're talking about something that is no longer relevant today. Sony's cut is all the same across the board.

Regarding second part, how is selling the game in a physical store better for the developer? They have to pay Sony a fee AND pay Best Buy? If the developer releases the game on Playstation Online Store, they only pay the Sony fee and keep more of the profits. Your point about the physical store doesn't make sense.

And the next version of Xbox is digital only. So...it's quite literally going to be the same as the iOS App Store.

 

[mikethemartian]

no
[doublepost=1559748988][/doublepost]


was that recently on cnn or something?

Fox

 

[Hieveryone]

Monopoly and pricing are two entirely different topics, although a company could use low or no-cost pricing to attract customers to maintain a monolopy. Clearly Apple does not do that.

The Pro display is *designed* and *intended* for big-dollar industry, not the average consumer (you and me). Apple has made that clear. It's a high-performance monitor that actually comes in at a lower price than the monitors it competes with — professional reference monitors.

Yeah but have the forgotten the average consumer?

 

[mikethemartian]

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.

So it’s better to have government regulate a market so that it can choose winners and losers and benefit those companies and industries that have political clout over those who don’t? Whatever complaints you have about it the free market is fair. It allows participants, whether purchaser or seller, to make their own decisions that benefit themselves and not some politically connected special interest group. Also don’t conflate free markets with crony capitalism where politically connected companies (Goldman Sachs) and industries (domestic auto) get special treatment like bailouts. Free markets provide the benefits of competition and allows a company to succeed or fail based on their own merits.

 

[technole]

I think the only thing they are a monopoly on is forcing software choices on the phone.. their should be the option for another app store imo (And yes I know people have the choice to go to Android), people should have more choice on what they put on their device just like a PC/Mac though. They can bitch and moan about reason why consumers shouldn't have a choice, but really its an issue that can be solved. At the end of the day, if I want to use Siri or Google as my assistant, that should be my choice as long as the 3rd party integrates with the phone properly, but all Apple would have to do is open the API's to those components and it could easily be done.

No, and fat chance. It's been a decade, and iOS is not an open system for anyone to put apps at-will.

 

[norbinhouston]

Tim Cook should go back to selling sugar water.

 

[threesixty360]

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

.

Every third party who makes a game for Sony has to pay a license and gives Sony a cut of their profits. Same with Nintendo and all the others. It’s a similar principal to the 30% Apple take. Sony also get to say what games can be published and what can’t. Again it’s the same principal.

I don’t see that Sony and apple are any different.

 

[Apple Corps]

There are not going to be any more Steve Jobs in your lifetime. Steve himself said don't run it like Steve. He wanted a GE... Cook delivered.

What do you mean he wanted a "GE" ?
[doublepost=1559777212][/doublepost]

Tim Cook should go back to selling sugar water.

What are you referring to? What sugar water was Cook selling?

 

[ipponrg]

Courts don’t investigate, they hear testimony and read documents provided and they are not infallible - they come to erroneous conclusions all the time.

Aside from you being pedantic and even if the court is wrong, the court's conclusions against/for Apple is what it is.

 

[goobot]

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.

I don’t think you know what a monopoly is. Also web apps.

 

[ROGmaster]

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 mentioning Microsoft doesn't make sense.
On Windows most people install software from 3rd party sources anyway.
Microsoft even started to open it's Windows 10 Store for Win32 games and apps will also follow.
On iOS this is not valid, so Microsoft is a bad and pointless example.

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.

Yeah but you have to pay for a developer account.
Side-loading apps on iOS is not a viable option for general consumers like it's on Android.

I believe Google offers it up for free

Google doesn't offer anything, it's simply permitted like it's on Windows.
The only restriction is having to give permission for the installation to proceed. But that's a simple check box press.
Also Google Play Protect works with side-loaded apps as well.

Whataboutery isn't a defense, its a deflection and that's what Cook is doing, he's deflecting.

 

[Dr_Charles_Forbin]

As others have observed. Apple itself is not a monopoly. But its App Store is.

Fine distinction: they are not a monopoly but engage in monopolistic practices. Example: can you purchase memory off the shelf that will work in an Apple product without modification? They won’t upgrade their own products anymore... driving you to a new purchase. They’re not very good at making their machines user serviceable and they pursue legal action against third parties that want the right to the same parts to service Apple products. They control the OS: the key separates them from others. Imagine if you could only buy a windows machine from Microsoft. That’s the situation.
[doublepost=1559817336][/doublepost]

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.

That’s exactly it.
[doublepost=1559817869][/doublepost]

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

Oh, I disagree with that. I don’t use the service because of its bias, not as much in stories as in outlets. I’m no Trump supporter in any way, shape or form but the choice of outlets is highly liberal tending. I don’t necessarily fault them either.. they use what they’re provided. As a news aggregator it could use some more outlets. Then again, I am an independent conservative.

 

[31 Flavas]

Who is complaining apple has a monopoly in personal computer devices? The complaints are about the iOS app store.

Again, Apple’s interest controlling the apps that appear on iOS are given to them by previous case law precedence. Yes, Apple is allowed to be the only source and sole arbiter for app approval if they desire that control. Apple can determine their own pricing structure charge 50-50, 60-40, 30-70 or whatever. They can dictated the restrictions programs and programming of such, that is acceptable. What isn't allowed is being anticompetitive. But just because you "feel" that 70-30 isn't a good split or you disagree on restrictions doesn't make them anti-competitive.

Riddle me this though: Android is 80% of the market is it not? Android phone have better hardware, are less expensive, a better operating system, give the freedom to customize, you're free to self jailbreak to sideload, allow 3rd party app stores, have less phone notching, user replaceable batteries, SD card memory expansion, etc. You don't even have to use any App store, at all. A developer can sell directly off their website to customers. So why are you (or any business) spending any time, personally (or not) in the Apple eco system. What's wrong with all those advantages that Android provides that makes iOS worth any of your time, personally or business-wise.

I guess, my question is why isn't all of this freedom and open-ness and choice not creating a market that crushes Apple's iOS app market.

Don't you dare tell me that Apple's control of their devices and their market on their devices is makes them attractive or more profitable to developers.

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

Who does Best Buy, buy from? Sony. Besides - I bet Sony gets a bigger cut themselves just selling to individual retailers - then operating retail stores themselves. Retail operations are expensive. You have leasing, utilities, maintenance, managers, employees, security, breakage, theft - returns... Operating your own retail stores for your product might even cost your product retail space. Many retailers in my area won't stock nike shoes since Nike operates a Nike retail stores in my area.

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.

Having the only App store not only isn't illegal - It's specifically permitted. They're allowed to monopolize their own developments, systems, and hardware. So how specifically is Apple using it's monopoly to be anti-competitive in the market at large. That is, in order to get an app approved for the iOS app store do you need to agree to only code only for their devices? No. Are they dropping approval or profit sharing costs way below what their competitors can afford to deny them business? You told me their pricing is the same as others.

How are they using their monopoly to harm their competitors? Apple's market is small compared to the market at large.

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

Where does Best Buy buy its PS4 games from though. Sony.

 

[macfacts]

Again, Apple’s interest controlling the apps that appear on iOS are given to them by previous case law precedence. Yes, Apple is allowed to be the only source and sole arbiter for app approval if they desire that control. Apple can determine their own pricing structure charge 50-50, 60-40, 30-70 or whatever. They can dictated the restrictions programs and programming of such, that is acceptable. What isn't allowed is being anticompetitive. But just because you "feel" that 70-30 isn't a good split or you disagree on restrictions doesn't make them anti-competitive.

.... .

Who does Best Buy, buy from? Sony.

Having the only App store not only isn't illegal - It's specifically permitted. They're allowed to monopolize their own developments, systems, and hardware. So how specifically is Apple using it's monopoly to be anti-competitive in the market at large. That is, in order to get an app approved for the iOS app store do you need to agree to only code only for their devices? No. Are they dropping approval or profit sharing costs way below what their competitors can afford to deny them business? You told me their pricing is the same as others.

How are they using their monopoly to harm their competitors? Apple's market is small compared to the market at large.

Where does Best Buy buy its PS4 games from though. Sony.

What is the releavince of where bestbuy gets their games from?

I never said having a monopoly is illegal. It's all the anti competitive rules apple has as well. Apple constantly changes the rules to disadvantage competitors, Different rules for apple vs everyone else (apple sends iOS notifications to promote apps but 3rd party devs can't), can't have links to web site showing how to sign up (forcing devs to use apples payment method of IAP).

 

[linuxcooldude]

Who is complaining apple has a monopoly in personal computer devices? The complaints are about the iOS app store.

If you want to claim someone has a monopoly, you have to define what apples primary market it applies. Software or its applications are not the driving force behind Apple. Its Apple hardware. The very reason Apple stop selling its MacOS separately as well as its key applications come free with its hardware.

It's a hard sell when you can get the same or competing software or services outside Apples hardware.

I never said having a monopoly is illegal. It's all the anti competitive rules apple has as well. Apple constantly changes the rules to disadvantage competitors, Different rules for apple vs everyone else (apple sends iOS notifications to promote apps but 3rd party devs can't), can't have links to web site showing how to sign up (forcing devs to use apples payment method of IAP).

Thats because Apple wants a piece of the pie inside its own ecosystem and that should be their right as they are a business and don't have to provide things for free for another company.

Companies who want to advertise new apps on Apple's platform can use iAD instead of notifications, why should Apple provide free advertising?

 

[derekamoss]

Why? He's making amazing products and making AAPL shareholders tons of money. I, for one, love the Tim Cook era.

He is making amazing products that are defective. Butterfly Keyboard). The iMac Pro and the new Mac Pro are great examples of his amazing products. If they are so amazing, why go back to essentially what the should have done in the first place, listen to what the people actually buying the "Amazing Products" really want.