And the whole time China is laughing and knowing they will soon dominate the tech world as ours fall to pieces by government regulations... It started in the EU, now the US is joining in. While I am all for open ecosystems and Apple can do a lot better there even without opening the app store, the government is going to far in most cases and their is NO monopoly, everyone has a choice, leave it to the people to decide!
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.
U.S. Antitrust Committee Likens Tech Companies Including Apple to 'Oil Barons and Railroad Tycoons'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! Any app on the Apple App Store can be deployed to ANY number of stores, and very very very many of them are! Apple has NO control over where those Apps are deployed to.
The ONLY thing that Apple has control over... as THEIR product that THEY produce, support and provide as a service to customers and developers, is the Apple App Store (there’s that trademark name, so, again, company’s product, yes, company’s service, surely, monopoly, no.)
This is what I think when I read “members of congress are concerned”. I would be gobsmacked if even ONE of them had ever tried developing an app
This is why people think congress is full of idiots.
Apple is the only thing standing between Android and total world domination. I hope Apple fights them tooth and nail.
Apple is the only thing standing between Android and total world domination. I hope Apple fights them tooth and nail.
Get out of here with your reasonable logic!
And who is the government protecting here with this supposed anti-trust violations? The individual software programmer? The emerging small software companies? or the now bloated left-over PC revolution software companies looking for new ways to nickel and dime their customers?
Prior to the App Store concept, individual programmers were SOL on making it on their own. They had to work for someone else in order to make money.
The App Store low cost of entry has enabled many new startup software companies to exist that couldn't drum up enough investor money to launch in "normal" retail market.
The only people complaining recently are the left-over PC revolution software companies who "can't" figure out how to adapt their business model to deliver a better product and value to their existing customer base and thereby growing it so they snipe at the App Store concept claiming it's monopoly and damaging their business. And yet, companies like Epic games sold large portions of their business to companies like Tencent (a Chinese company) and still make billions of dollars on their games like Fortnite ($2.4 billion in 2018).
So once again, who is it that the government is trying to protect here?
The consumer?
Prior to the App Store concept, individual programmers were SOL on making it on their own. They had to work for someone else in order to make money.
The App Store low cost of entry has enabled many new startup software companies to exist that couldn't drum up enough investor money to launch in "normal" retail market.
The only people complaining recently are the left-over PC revolution software companies who "can't" figure out how to adapt their business model to deliver a better product and value to their existing customer base and thereby growing it so they snipe at the App Store concept claiming it's monopoly and damaging their business. And yet, companies like Epic games sold large portions of their business to companies like Tencent (a Chinese company) and still make billions of dollars on their games like Fortnite ($2.4 billion in 2018).
So once again, who is it that the government is trying to protect here?
The consumer?
Keep government out of tech as much as possible.
The argument that Apple has a monopoly on its own operating system is totally illogical and it is extremely dangerous to let government intrude on this. The principle behind this legislation will let government decide when a product becomes too successful, and intrude on it. Not only this, Apple's proprietary tech stack offers a level of security to its consumers that can be found nowhere else, and consumers are choosing it. Government should not punish the company who is most willing to ensure a level of privacy survives into the digital age. If there is going to be more tech legislation, than it should be about some of the dangerous anti-privacy practices that other companies are partaking in.
I take a libertarian stance here because the "solution" to competing with Apple by another company is easy to understand: make a better phone/OS than Apple. Or at least one that a significant number of people think is better. There are many tech companies who have the capability of doing this, but don't even try. Instead they want legislation to force their way into Apple's ecosystem. This is not good - punishing Apple for developing their own tech stack will destroy the incentive for other companies to do the same, and thereby stifle innovation for the entire industry.
The argument that Apple has a monopoly on its own operating system is totally illogical and it is extremely dangerous to let government intrude on this. The principle behind this legislation will let government decide when a product becomes too successful, and intrude on it. Not only this, Apple's proprietary tech stack offers a level of security to its consumers that can be found nowhere else, and consumers are choosing it. Government should not punish the company who is most willing to ensure a level of privacy survives into the digital age. If there is going to be more tech legislation, than it should be about some of the dangerous anti-privacy practices that other companies are partaking in.
I take a libertarian stance here because the "solution" to competing with Apple by another company is easy to understand: make a better phone/OS than Apple. Or at least one that a significant number of people think is better. There are many tech companies who have the capability of doing this, but don't even try. Instead they want legislation to force their way into Apple's ecosystem. This is not good - punishing Apple for developing their own tech stack will destroy the incentive for other companies to do the same, and thereby stifle innovation for the entire industry.
Yes, we have anti-trust laws and yes, we all need to abide by them. Why? Because they were written to protect the people.
So my question is who is being "hurt" or "harmed" by Apple's App Store and who is benefiting?
Who is this Subcommittee trying to protect?
Enacting anti-trust laws that are not helping the people become a harm in themselves.
I agree with Apple's current stance. Love the scrutiny. Find the devil in the details. But make sure you're solving for the greater the good of the people.
Not for some crying billionaire software companies.
Or for that matter, not because the government can't "crack" open smartphones.
So my question is who is being "hurt" or "harmed" by Apple's App Store and who is benefiting?
Who is this Subcommittee trying to protect?
Enacting anti-trust laws that are not helping the people become a harm in themselves.
I agree with Apple's current stance. Love the scrutiny. Find the devil in the details. But make sure you're solving for the greater the good of the people.
Not for some crying billionaire software companies.
Or for that matter, not because the government can't "crack" open smartphones.
Installer.app and Cydia were the original app stores for iOS. They created the marketplace where there was not one before.
Steve Jobs announced that there would be no apps, but rich websites in Safari. Installer.app and Cydia came about because people wanted apps.
The Apple App Store didn’t appear until a year later. Apple then locked the originals out.
Most of these “questions” are answered in the subcommittee’s report, and surprise, it’s not just “billionaire software companies” that take issue with the App Store’s existing business model and policies. It also has exactly nothing to do with Apple’s stance on encryption.
The following quote is taken from this site https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/robberbarons.asp
Apple has charged a flat fee of 30% since day 1. That price has never changed over the years, not even for inflation.
Apple has famously promoted the ever growing number of apps available on their App Store until it shot past over a million (or billion?) apps.
So I don't see what the argument is for labeling them comparable to the real robber barons.
- Robber barons were accused of being monopolists who earned profits by intentionally restricting the production of goods and then raising prices.
Apple has charged a flat fee of 30% since day 1. That price has never changed over the years, not even for inflation.
Apple has famously promoted the ever growing number of apps available on their App Store until it shot past over a million (or billion?) apps.
So I don't see what the argument is for labeling them comparable to the real robber barons.
The comparison with oil barons is a bit much. Oil exists independently of oil companies. iPhones only exist because Apple makes them.
I read the report. I fundamentally disagree with its findings. If reads like a 5th grader wrote it.
My point is that if you're reading just the letter of the law at the exclusion of the intent then our government has failed in this matter and will harm the people's future experience.
To overly simplify the possible end result here and it's ramifications, if the App Store is deemed to be in violation of the anti-trust laws and the remedy is to "open" it up for other software companies to come in and make their "App Store" within the App Store, that means Apple would no longer have the ability to control access to the entire smartphone platform and having to "trust" third party companies NOT to write code that would allow hackers to crack open the smartphones and to rely on third party companies to be responsive to fix such vulnerabilities. Welcome to the world of PC viruses.
Would really suck if you need to dial 911, but a ransom virus locks you out.
With attorneys for relatives and friends, I'm not so concerned about what's currently written in the law books. I am more concerned about the relevance of the law and if the laws need to be updated.
Personally, I think Microsoft and the originators of the "internet" need to be held accountable for creating a "system" that allow for viruses to be written and distributed. If viruses could be eliminated, then I would be more against Apple's App Store concept on the iOS devices.
But in terms of an individual software programmer, I like my chances of bringing my few projects to life on Apple's App Store now than I did of creating my own software company, designing packaging, negotiating retail contracts and distribution and maintaining physical inventory during the PC revolution.
No anti-trust law is going to help me surmount those hurdles.
Eh, software tech has very low barriers to entry. If they keep their hands off*, it'll work well, at least better than other industries. I mean look at all these new startups that have become huge. Even the companies being scrutinized were tiny not very long ago. All are categorized as growth companies because they pay low or no dividends. Oil companies are much older and much more involved in politics, to put it nicely.
* which they're NOT when they give Amazon enough tax credits to pay 0 tax for years on end and USPS shipping at a loss
* which they're NOT when they give Amazon enough tax credits to pay 0 tax for years on end and USPS shipping at a loss
Last edited:
And Facebook liked GDPR. More nonsense to hinder small competitors.
The last thing consumers want is the government interfering against the interests of the rich and vibrant iOS ecosystem, of which we all benefit from greatly.
Competing apps are not removed. In fact Apple bends over backwards to promote them even over its own apps that do exactly the same thing.
It creates another barrier to entry for the smaller players which is exactly what the bigger players want. 🤔
It doesn't take the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee to reach such conclusion.
It's obvious.
But since Congress is in the pocket of corporation in this country, I doubt anything will happen.
It's obvious.
But since Congress is in the pocket of corporation in this country, I doubt anything will happen.
Looks like Epic might get what they wanted and not have to wait till June 2021 for their day in court.
It’s good though and I agree with everything the report said. It’s insane that only Apple gets to distro products on their platform.
It’s good though and I agree with everything the report said. It’s insane that only Apple gets to distro products on their platform.