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

[cupcakes2000]

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.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.

Competition exists for Apple in each of the spaces it operates in. In fact in most of the spaces Apple is the smaller player, comparatively.

When it comes to the App Store your Comment also does not ring true. There are multiple apps which mimic and oftentimes better Apples own offerings in the store. Apple even gives them awards and promotes them. It rarely promotes its own apps on the AppStore, other than Apple Arcade, which is not an app, rather a sort of secondary App Store.
Apple doesn’t stop any of the developers on their platform from developing elsewhere, and Apple also develops for other platforms to allow certain compatibilities within its own ecosystem, such as iCloud and iTunes.

The tight control of their own eco system is what seems to get peoples goat, but you only have to look at ANY other platform, including Apples own Mac platform, to see the huge difference in virus and rogue app availability.

Removing Apples control over the AppStore only means ruining the Apple experience for the consumer that wants the experience that you can only get with Apple. For the consumer that doesn’t want that experience, go to another platform.

Apple has done more for small indie developers than any other platform - with the introduction of the AppStore, from reducing the cost of publishing apps to £99 a year to reversing the developer/distributer percentage to the benefit of the developer.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

The comparison with oil barons is a bit much. Oil exists independently of oil companies. iPhones only exist because Apple makes them.

Your rebuttal is a bit off. iOS is the source/platform that makes possible the creation of apps. Just like petroleum allows the production of so many products we like to consume. Without the source we do not have the by-products. In the case of iOS there is only one authority choosing what is made available to consumers and on what terms. I suspect that's where the monopoly argument comes from.

 

[Arbuthnott]

As for Apple specifically, the subcommittee determined that Apple has a monopoly when it comes to the distribution of software apps on iOS devices and that its control over iOS "provides it with gatekeeper power over software distribution on iOS devices."

Of course this is true. But only the most naive and stupid would see this as being entirely a bad thing. Are the writers of the report proposing to replace Apple's trusted control of the quality and security of offerings with regulation perhaps? Or simply remove the protection that this affords us. I suspect that many others, like me, chose Apple's platform and ecosystem specifically because we are looking for this type of trusted protection.

Consumers who do not like Apple exerting this custodial control can of course go buy their gear from some other manufacturer. Apple is by no means the dominant player in the market, and there is plenty of choice of alternative manufacturers.

Perhaps there is an element of Lamborghini unfairly excluding potential customers from buying their product due to their exorbitant prices? Or even Volvo or Mercedes (cost of servicing and spares???). Those who cant or won't afford can always buy an alternative from Suzuki or Great Wall

 

[Blu Reel]

Your rebuttal is a bit off. iOS is the source/platform that makes possible the creation of apps. Just like petroleum allows the production of so many products we like to consume. Without the source we do not have the by-products. In the case of iOS there is only one authority choosing what is made available to consumers and on what terms. I suspect that's where the monopoly argument comes from.

Except that petroleum works on any and all manufacturers products. iOS only works on Apple's products. Android OS is the one that works on "many" manufacturers products. So the anti-trust argument works better against the Android platform, but not the iOS platform.

 

[Arbuthnott]

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.”

Your argument is fine, except: Apple is dominant only as the controller of the conditions that must be satisfied in order to sell on the APPLE App Store. They are not dominant in terms of who can sell software for phones etc. The legislation was aimed at monopoly power, which does not apply in this case.

Steve Jobs' contention was always that a managed ecosystem was something that would offer customers an advantage that they would pay a premium for. The alternative, as represented by the split between suppliers of hardware (eg DELL, HP, Samsung, etc) and Operating Systems (Linux, Windows, Android, etc), is freely available to consumers without trying to force Apple to conform to an alternative marketing model. If Apple's offering were to the disadvantage of users, surely the market would have killed the company long since? Hence what is being proposed is contrary to significant consumer preference.

What gets me is that this is obvious. It is annoying that mega companies such as EPIC would happily have their own software store, collecting 100% of the revenue of their games, and the games of others that are produced using EPIC coding tools, who see the size of the Apple market as being desirable to sell to, want to remove the conditions that see us consumers choose Apple in order that EPIC should be able to increase its profit margins! I guess all's fair in love and war, and people get away with some outrageous stuff in business, but personally I say a plague on EPIC and the others who are stirring this particular pot, and I note the significant presence of Chinese ownership in the companies that are agitating. One cant help feeling that China Inc would be happy if they could force the removal of Apple's ability to control what part of our private information gets harvested and sent to them - this is what we can expect if Apple is forced to dismantle its store structure

 

[Blu Reel]

If the anti-trust case is proven against Apple and the iOS platform, all I can say is welcome back flip phones and good bye "smart" phones.

And thank you Uncle Sam for stifling innovation. Job well done.

 

[Smartass]

Multiple app stores is going to ruin UX and developer experience. Mark my words.

Yeah yeah yeah yada yada yada, poor developers. We heard the same thing when apple first introduced iphone 5 with bigger screen than the 4. And then with 6, 6plus, X...

 

[cupcakes2000]

Yeah yeah yeah yada yada yada, poor developers. We heard the same thing when apple first introduced iphone 5 with bigger screen than the 4. And then with 6, 6plus, X...

Two entirely different things. If you’re going to quote a post, at least answer it with something relevant.
The op was referring to the fact that there will be no control from anyone regarding the UX if you can put software anywhere. Probably a proud dev will be fine, but any old sloppy Tom, dick or Harry could create some monstrous apps. Grandma could pour her life savings in to an app she heard about which would then rinse her.
You’re referring to a couple of apparent devs whinging on the internet about once in a blue moon phone redesigns.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Yeah yeah yeah yada yada yada, poor developers. We heard the same thing when apple first introduced iphone 5 with bigger screen than the 4. And then with 6, 6plus, X...

what? this makes 0 sense.

 

[CaTOAGU]

Your rebuttal is a bit off. iOS is the source/platform that makes possible the creation of apps. Just like petroleum allows the production of so many products we like to consume. Without the source we do not have the by-products. In the case of iOS there is only one authority choosing what is made available to consumers and on what terms. I suspect that's where the monopoly argument comes from.

Right but iOS doesn’t exist without Apple either, if Apple stopped developing it, it would stagnate and die. Petroleum exists because of decomposed and compressed organic matter, it’s a natural resource that became exploited, sometimes by monopoly, oil companies. It would continue to exist if those oil companies went away and I’m fact would increase given enough time.

I get the monopoly argument, although I’m not sure I agree and I’m concerned we’re forgetting how bad software distribution was before app stores.

 

[MacBH928]

I don't understand how monopoly works. If you can compete against them how is that a monopoly?
Monopoly means no one can compete against you. If these companies don't like Apple eco-system why don't you create a consortium of your own and build your own platform?

I mean Tencent alone is worth $600B, don't tell me you can't create your own platform. Apple market cap when they created the iOS was a mere $150B.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I seriously doubt Apple will allow a third-party App Store.

They can be forced to. Apple is not above the law.

What happens if Apple is forced to allow "alternative" app stores... and a bunch of these new app stores are created... but developers decide not to use them?

I get it... a developer might be excited to sell their app in "Jim's App Store" because they only take 15% rather than the 30% that Apple takes.

But will it be worth it?

Yeah... you can potentially make more money... but now your app is in some other app store that nobody knows about. You're losing a lot of visibility. So if anyone wants to buy your app... they have to go find that app store. Then they must create a new account on "Jim's App Store" and give them their credit card number. That might turn off some consumers... from both a convenience and a security standpoint.

If you're a serious developer... you'd still want to have your app on Apple's App Store to have access to the billion Apple users, right? So now you've got to maintain two developer accounts... one for each store. And handle income from two app stores.

And would 3rd-party app stores handle subscriptions or in-app purchases effectively? Right now I pay for Overcast Premium at $10/year. It's all maintained through Apple's App Store with my billing information tied to my AppleID. And I can renew or cancel my subscriptions in Settings directly on the iPhone.

Will "Jim's App Store" be able to offer subscriptions like that?

And will Marco Arment even bother selling Overcast in "Jim's App Store" ?

The best outcome from this Subcommittee scrutiny could be Apple relaxing some of their rules. Then Epic can open their "VBucks Store" and not have to give Apple so much of a cut.

And Amazon can finally sell Kindle books inside the Kindle app.

But I'm not seeing how the average developer will want to deal with the hassle of additional app stores. And trusting some 3rd-party to handle your monthly subscriptions and in-app purchases of gems, coins, etc.

Maybe the Subcommittee will be satisfied if Apple simply allows other app stores... even if no one uses them.

 

[Ramchi]

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.

It will be very very difficult for a newbee to start fresh developing mobile OS without violating copy rights, trade marks, lecense agreements that has been widely in use for 20÷25 years. Apple won't license, Google can't license, Microsoft would break your neck if you don't pay them license fee & royalty, same is the case with Qualcomm which has all the necessary patents and milk their clients with ransom license fees, on top of that copy right laws(Oracle is suing Google for copy right for using similar "Class Names, constructs in their API code"......all these standards, regulations, forums keeping only the established big players. It took nearly 6-7 years of litigation among the top brands to agree to what they call it as cartels.....unless Government orpassionate tech groups get involved, world may not see much progress in mobile tech. Already enough bans in force making the market void of true competitors....

 

[I7guy]

It will be very very difficult for a newbee to start fresh developing mobile OS without violating copy rights, trade marks, lecense agreements that has been widely in use for 20÷25 years. Apple won't license, Google can't license, Microsoft would break your neck if you don't pay them license fee & royalty, same is the case with Qualcomm which has all the necessary patents and milk their clients with ransom license fees, on top of that copy right laws(Oracle is suing Google for copy right for using similar "Class Names, constructs in their API code"......all these standards, regulations, forums keeping only the established big players. It took nearly 6-7 years of litigation among the top brands to agree to what they call it as cartels.....unless Government orpassionate tech groups get involved, world may not see much progress in mobile tech. Already enough bans in force making the market void of true competitors....

Not true.

Android is a viable open platforms. Just ask Qualcomm.

Let’s fix the cable franchise issue first and then we’ll break up non-dominant tech companies so any start-up company can jump in and use their assets for free.

 

[Damian83]

Ok so apple dont want other stores on ios as official store is safe, apps are checked by apple itself, and generally speaking theres a little chance to screw something with viruses, trojans, malwares etc right?

so why in macos i can install anything from any source? Yes i get a warning everytime i do this and everytime i have to confirm it in the time vault tab but i still can do it in legit way without needing to jailbreak whole os.

so the reason is really the system stabiliy or simply money? Or maybe apple cares more about ios than macos?

 

[Zimmy68]

Multiple app stores is going to ruin UX and developer experience. Mark my words.

Blame Apple. This 30% skim was never going to work forever. They should have come up with another way to get revenue.
That "tax" was too high not to get some high powered attorneys interest.

 

[tridley68]

Little Timmy could definitely be considered an oil baron.

 

[triton100]

Multiple app stores is going to ruin UX and developer experience. Mark my words.

I doubt it, most people will just buy from the Apple App Store

 

[CarpalMac]

And they did not find Google had a monopoly on Ads

Utterly astounding

Not even just adverts, internet search rankings as a whole. If Google decides to put your site "below the fold" or shock horror, onto the second page of results, your website traffic is basically dead.

Google stands firm in its appeal against €2.4bn shopping fine

Search engine denies promoting its service above smaller rivals

www.ft.com

 

[cocky jeremy]

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.

If it comes to that, I hope they do.

 

[quagmire]

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.

Apple introduced screen time and shortly after began removing apps that offered the same function before Apple introduced it themselves. Apple cited privacy concerns for the removal, but timing is still odd. Why were they allowed to be in the app store before Apple baked in the feature into iOS if they had privacy issues?

Apple Has Been Removing Apps From the App Store. Why You Should Pay Attention

Apps that help monitor and regulate screen time and device activity have caught the scorn of Apple, leading to concerns about privacy and competition.

www.inc.com

 

[drewyboy]

Amazon has a monopoly on AWS. Should the government break that up also?

Come on now, you’re being ridiculous with that analogy but I’ll entertain your comparison.

If I bought a computer from Amazon and the only internet service or programs/apps they allowed were run on AWS, and the developer not only paid the normal AWS fees but also had to pay a 30% cut to Amazon just because... then yeah, they should definitely be looked at.

 

[jonblatho]

Your argument is fine, except: Apple is dominant only as the controller of the conditions that must be satisfied in order to sell on the APPLE App Store. They are not dominant in terms of who can sell software for phones etc. The legislation was aimed at monopoly power, which does not apply in this case.

Steve Jobs' contention was always that a managed ecosystem was something that would offer customers an advantage that they would pay a premium for. The alternative, as represented by the split between suppliers of hardware (eg DELL, HP, Samsung, etc) and Operating Systems (Linux, Windows, Android, etc), is freely available to consumers without trying to force Apple to conform to an alternative marketing model. If Apple's offering were to the disadvantage of users, surely the market would have killed the company long since? Hence what is being proposed is contrary to significant consumer preference.

What gets me is that this is obvious. It is annoying that mega companies such as EPIC would happily have their own software store, collecting 100% of the revenue of their games, and the games of others that are produced using EPIC coding tools, who see the size of the Apple market as being desirable to sell to, want to remove the conditions that see us consumers choose Apple in order that EPIC should be able to increase its profit margins! I guess all's fair in love and war, and people get away with some outrageous stuff in business, but personally I say a plague on EPIC and the others who are stirring this particular pot, and I note the significant presence of Chinese ownership in the companies that are agitating. One cant help feeling that China Inc would be happy if they could force the removal of Apple's ability to control what part of our private information gets harvested and sent to them - this is what we can expect if Apple is forced to dismantle its store structure

You typed a lot over a premise that fundamentally contradicts what the subcommittee found.

 

[Ethosik]

Ok so apple dont want other stores on ios as official store is safe, apps are checked by apple itself, and generally speaking theres a little chance to screw something with viruses, trojans, malwares etc right?

so why in macos i can install anything from any source? Yes i get a warning everytime i do this and everytime i have to confirm it in the time vault tab but i still can do it in legit way without needing to jailbreak whole os.

so the reason is really the system stabiliy or simply money? Or maybe apple cares more about ios than macos?

Because a phone is not a laptop/desktop. All my desktop knows about me is that I like to play games and software development. My phone on the other hand has all my financial data, health data, personal and private conversations with family and friends. Need the ability to dial 911 when in an emergency. I can't have my phone act up if something bad slips through.

 

[Damian83]

Because a phone is not a laptop/desktop. All my desktop knows about me is that I like to play games and software development. My phone on the other hand has all my financial data, health data, personal and private conversations with family and friends. Need the ability to dial 911 when in an emergency. I can't have my phone act up if something bad slips through.

i keep important data on pc instead. keeping it on a device i can leave on a restaurant table isnt so smart. fact is there are tons of people that have a smartphone while dont have a pc (mainly because dont know how to use it). an user with so low tech knowledge is of course the perfect target for malicious attacks. but, i hate the fact companies choose for me.

apple forced me to enable 2FA. now, if im abroad on holiday and i lose my phone, i m totally disconnected from the world. before 2FA was enough to find a pc, login to apple id, and find all contacts, passwords to other accounts etc. not mentioning that now its also impossibile to use find my iphone from any pc as 2FA asks for confirmation from the (LOST) phone!

google blocks gmail everytime i go abroad (different IP) even if im still on my macbook!

apple, again, tells me that app store is the only way to use apps in safe way. NO! i had ONLY jailbreaked iphones until maybe 5s, never had any problems, never got data stolen etc.

so please stop telling me whats better for me!