U.S. Antitrust Committee Likens Tech Companies Including Apple to 'Oil Barons and Railroad Tycoons'

[AdonisSMU]

Government getting involved and making things worse? Say it isn't so!😱

Apple has competition: Android.

Why is it Apple's fault (or Android's) for not having a worthy competitor outside these two choices? Nobody is being FORCED to buy Apple (or Android).

They're successful because they worked hard and intelligently and created something people want to become successful. Don't punish them now because people want want they're selling.

If Apple is broken up, then their products become garbage. So would Android I guess (lol).

They're not "railroad or oil tycoons", lol. Those and Bell where out there telling people and other businesses "no you can't actually build there. We own it. Sorry."

show me how Apple is telling anyone they can't build a competing platform.

Palm and Blackberry tried but they just werent good enough and people didn't choose them. Explain how that's Apple's fault?

Yeah platform tech is harder to break up and really isnt the big offenders here.
Tbqh, we should be looking at Facebook and Amazon and Google far more than MSFT and Apple.

 

[gaximus]

Even if the courts forced Apple to allow another application store on iOS, they wouldn't have to allow those to use their APIs, they could completely block all of their APIs from anything that wasn't installed by the App Store, i.e. Metal(Open GL isn't supported anymore), Maps, Accelerometer access, Camera Access, and hundreds of others that app developers take advantage of. Do you know how hard it would be to even make an app without access to UITabledView, or even gestures.

 

[rjohnstone]

Even if the courts forced Apple to allow another application store on iOS, they wouldn't have to allow those to use their APIs, they could completely block all of their APIs from anything that wasn't installed by the App Store, i.e. Metal(Open GL isn't supported anymore), Maps, Accelerometer access, Camera Access, and hundreds of others that app developers take advantage of. Do you know how hard it would be to even make an app without access to UITabledView, or even gestures.

Doing so would land them back in court and back in front of a House subcommittee again.
Why? Because it would be effectively blocking the 3rd party store and apps from functioning, thereby leaving their original issue unresolved.

 

[JM]

Apple isn't telling anyone they can't build a competing platform (if you mean hardware and software), but once the players are set, it's nearly impossible to change it. Just look at Microsoft and Apple, still by far the most dominant players in PCs decades later. So while lawmakers and regulators could take the view of "well technically someone could build a competing platform," they have to work within the confines of reality and in that reality nobody is unseating Apple or Google in the smartphone market. It's from that fact that policy should be based upon, not some technically possible, but highly improbable scenario.

When it comes to just software though, Apple is saying that you can't come build a platform here actually. If you think about it, a consumer should be allowed to install whatever they want on their phone, just as with PCs.

Oops, forgot to respond to the pc comment.

is the argument that Apple should be consistent with their logic regarding software installation?

they allow app loading on the Mac as long as the developer of the software programmed it correctly. Apple chose to have an AppStore on the iPhone for reasons.

I don't think Apple has the intention of walling up the iPhone only for profits, if they did, then why wouldn't they do it on the Mac? (The last time I owned a Mac was the G4, and I could install whatever I wanted)

 

[McKodiak]

Apple has created an ecosystem. One of it's greatest features is privacy. To ensure that privacy, they have locked down entry into that ecosystem. Privacy extends into many, MANY, areas of a user's information. The only way Apple can ensure its ecosystem is not using the information incorrectly is to lock it down and review everything that tries to enter. Allowing another store to possibly allow data mining apps or fraudulent use of people's payment methods is unethical. The government is focusing on the App Store and the players in that market and not considering the consumers of Apple's ecosystem. They should pay attention to the consumers as they are the greater amount of voters.

 

[BootsWalking]

Where is it in the report how the App Store has been a godsend to both consumers and developers? Look at the fu**** metrics - downloads, unique users, rev generated, ease of WW distribution. All went off the charts with the App Store

Let’s all take a moment to remember how god damn awful software distribution was on Windows and carrier digital stores 10 years ago. It was a F**** shi* show

What a god dam crime this whole charade is

Oil was a godsend to consumers as well but that doesn't mean Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly. The litmus test for a monopoly is not whether there's an absence of benefit to consumers or other companies in the ecosystem but whether the company controlling the market is operating in a manner which is anticompetitive.

 

[JM]

Yeah platform tech is harder to break up and really isnt the big offenders here.
Tbqh, we should be looking at Facebook and Amazon and Google far more than MSFT and Apple.

Yeah I don't like Facebook and Google they can destroy those businesses 😂 lol

I have mixed feelings about Amazon. They remind me of Walmart 20 years ago "destroying all the mom and pops" but they're still mom and pops out there struggling like they always have.

 

[rjohnstone]

Apple has created an ecosystem. One of it's greatest features is privacy. To ensure that privacy, they have locked down entry into that ecosystem. Privacy extends into many, MANY, areas of a user's information. The only way Apple can ensure its ecosystem is not using the information incorrectly is to lock it down and review everything that tries to enter. Allowing another store to possibly allow data mining apps or fraudulent use of people's payment methods is unethical. The government is focusing on the App Store and the players in that market and not considering the consumers of Apple's ecosystem. They should pay attention to the consumers as they are the greater amount of voters.

Read the House report.... the privacy thing is largely Apple's "go to" comment when blocking a competing app.
Has zero to do with privacy and more to do with $$$.

 

[bobbie424242]

"Buuuuuuuuuuuut it's Apple store ! It can do whatever it wants !"

 

[JM]

Oil was a godsend to consumers as well but that doesn't mean Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly. The standard of a monopoly is not whether there's no benefit to consumers or other companies in the ecosystem but whether the company controlling the market is doing so in a way which is anticompetitive.

The only thing it seems like Apple is doing that is anticompetitive is being so dang good that they're the best.

 

[BootsWalking]

The only thing it seems like Apple is doing that is anticompetitive is being so dang good that they're the best.

Previous monopolies argued the same thing. And just like Apple they structured their markets to exclude competitors. It's easy to be the best at something when you don't allow competitors to exist that can be compared to you.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Oooh, there's gonna be a lot of butt hurt fanbois with this one

 

[genovelle]

A really important quote that was left out: “To address this underlying conflict of interest, Subcommittee staff recommends that Congress consider legislation that draws on two mainstay tools of the antimonopoly toolkit: structural separation and line of business restrictions. Structural separations prohibit a dominant intermediary from operating in markets that place the intermediary in competition with the firms dependent on its infrastructure. Line of business restrictions, meanwhile, generally limit the market in which a dominant firm can engage.”

Like I’ve said all along: Apple can be the referee or a player in the “game” that is the App Store, but it’s legally difficult if not untenable to be both. Break it up.

It’s easy. Shut it down and focus on something else. Stop supporting the tools that provide provide deep access to their platform and just make their own software. If you want something else use a browser of some kind. Running native will come to an end for 3rd parties and be provided for only their most trusted developer, Apple. Problem solved!

 

[smulji]

The only thing it seems like Apple is doing that is anticompetitive is being so dang good that they're the best.

Read the report. There's plenty of examples in there.

 

[macfacts]

They will change the business model before they open it up. Apple created a marketplace when there was not one before. Despite the profits of the current App Store, I can see Apple shutting the whole thing down for developers before allowing anyone to have unfettered access to their hardware.

That's why I will never buy an iPhone cause you can't own one. It is still apples property.

 

[BootsWalking]

Apple has created an ecosystem. One of it's greatest features is privacy. To ensure that privacy, they have locked down entry into that ecosystem. Privacy extends into many, MANY, areas of a user's information. The only way Apple can ensure its ecosystem is not using the information incorrectly is to lock it down and review everything that tries to enter. Allowing another store to possibly allow data mining apps or fraudulent use of people's payment methods is unethical. The government is focusing on the App Store and the players in that market and not considering the consumers of Apple's ecosystem. They should pay attention to the consumers as they are the greater amount of voters.

Assuming privacy is the reason Apple locks down their app distribution system, what's wrong with allowing users to accept any risk to their privacy in using other distribution systems?

 

[I7guy]

That's why I will never buy an iPhone cause you can't own one. It is still apples property.

Don’t think apple cares, is my opinion.

 

[JM]

Previous monopolies argued the same thing. And just like Apple they structured their markets to exclude competitors. It's easy to be the best at something when you don't allow competitors to exist that can be compared to you.

Well have to see what comes out of litigation to determine if Apple is in fact doing anything anticompetitive to not allow competitors to exist.

 

[I7guy]

Previous monopolies argued the same thing. And just like Apple they structured their markets to exclude competitors. It's easy to be the best at something when you don't allow competitors to exist that can be compared to you.

That’s if the App Store is defined as an illegal monopoly.

 

[vipergts2207]

Impossible, eh? I'm sure BlackBerry would love to know that it's impossible to unseat the dominant players

Apple is huge. Yep. Dominating. Yep (sort of). Surely you can see how Apple's "spark" is slowly fading, and becoming more of a commodity than a luxury. And it seems ripe for someone like a Steve Jobs type person(s) to come up and blow us all away as consumers.... and then we'll leave Apple for the next best thing.

but that will never happen if you don't allow people to know that they can get to that point where they dominate. If the government steps in and destroys every successful business, what would be the point of creating great products?

First, I said nearly impossible. Second, Blackberry was unseated because they failed to adapt to a complete paradigm shift. Go look at a Blackberry from 2006 and tell me how similar it is to the smartphone of today that Apple created in 2007. If we're talking another new paradigm shift, you might have a point, but we're not. We're talking about smartphones as they currently exists and as they will continue to exist for years. Also, talk of the government stepping in and destroying a successful business is complete hyperbole. Apple isn't going to get destroyed. They might get some regulations that force them to stop participating as both player and referee.

 

[rjohnstone]

That’s if the App Store is defined as an illegal monopoly.

If you read the whole report, you will see it is defined as such.
The question from the committee is do you split the company or enforce business unit separation.
Meaning App Store side can no longer share app info with Apple's in house development team and actually apply Apple's API rules to Apple in house apps as well.

 

[JM]

Read the report. There's plenty of examples in there.

I might; I saw in another post it's something over 400 pages?

I have my opinion Let's see what the lawyers think

 

[smulji]

I might; I saw in another post it's something over 400 pages?

I have my opinion Let's see what the lawyers think

499 to be exact but not all of it directly related to Apple.

 

[macsimcon]

This is utterly ridiculous. This Google/Apple duopoly is not a result of illegal activity, it's a result of competition. Palm, Microsoft, Blackberry, and others were unable to compete against iOS and Android. The market spoke, and it chose Apple and Google.

And for Congress to suggest that, because iOS has just over half of the U.S. market, that Apple is able to act in some illegal fashion is preposterous.

 

[JM]

First, I said nearly impossible. Second, Blackberry was unseated because they failed to adapt to a complete paradigm shift. Go look at a Blackberry from 2006 and tell me how similar it is to the smartphone of today that Apple created in 2007. If we're talking another new paradigm shift, you might have a point, but we're not. We're talking about smartphones as they currently exists and as they will continue to exist for years. Also, talk of the government stepping in and destroying a successful business is complete hyperbole. Apple isn't going to get destroyed. They might get some regulations that force them to stop participating as both player and referee.

Ahh, the semantics to the rescue 😄 fair enough.
Let me clarify your argument so I understand it: blackberry failed to adapt and so it failed. Apple has not failed in adapting and has been successful. Therefore you're arguing that businesses that don't fail to adapt and reap the rewards are therefore deserving of the government regulating them?