U.S. Antitrust Legislation Would Require Users to Be Able to Delete All Pre-Installed Apple Apps [Updated]

[Michael Scrip]

So it'll be like the "Browser Ballot" that Windows had in Europe long ago. How did that work out?

But it would be for all apps that come standard on an iPhone? Yikes.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I assume you also bought your mum an Apple One subscription otherwise half the icons on the Home Screen of her new iPhone do nothing at all for her.

Really? Which ones do nothing at all without an Apple One subscription?

 

[ikramerica]

It’s insane that the government is trying to suggest that Apple is a monopoly, but so is Google, and both have competing products, yet in both cases, these two companies also offer apps that the other company makes available on their respective devices so that consumers can use the services / apps that they want.

I’m not sure that falls into the category of what a monopoly is or does.

I just don’t understand why this is even an issue of needing to be “fair”. Why is it that Apple’s self developed hardware and software need to now be made so that competitors, who are also developer customers that will likely make money from Apple’s hardware and software, can get an even better shot at convincing the consumer to use their app instead of Apple’s own app? Should these companies be doing a better job marketing to get consumers to use their apps in the first place?

With Windows, it was MS saying “you can’t buy our OS to make your computer work unless it has IE and we won’t let you preload other software we compete with.”

Here it’s apple selling their own hardware and software as a package and offering a built in method to install competitors’ products.

 

[vipergts2207]

I do agree with how you phrased this issue. However, the issue I have with it. And I am sure many others will do. Is at what point did it become illegal to do so? If Apple or any company has the right to start a business in any and all areas legally. At some point it had to become illegal for them to enter a new whatever business. Which in all these cases did not happen. It's as if people just woke up to what was happening and felt that it wasn't right. Verses, what does the law state. If Apple did something illegal on the way to becoming this huge tech giant company worth trillions of dollars. This should have been dealt with at that time with a law that forbade them from doing so. But, as far as I know. Nothing exists to state such law exists. Only an opinion of a person or persons in a or many governments that have just noticed what's going on and saying they don't like it.

Who knows at which point Apple may have crossed a boundary. Apple didn't become the dominant player overnight. And smaller companies that don't dominate a market the way Apple now does (and Google) can get away with more than they would if they were huge and able to have an outsized impact on the market. Take into consideration that government is also not frequently quick to react.

 

[macsimcon]

Who knows at which point Apple may have crossed a boundary. Apple didn't become the dominant player overnight. And smaller companies that don't dominate a market the way Apple now does (and Google) can get away with more than they would if they were huge and able to have an outsized impact on the market. Take into consideration that government is also not frequently quick to react.

But Apple is only the dominant player in mobile in the United States. Worldwide, Android is the market leader. Shouldn't that count? How can a company be called a monopolist if they only have a monopoly in one country?

 

[macsimcon]

Because this is legislation and not a court ruling, it will be challenged in court with a stay, and take years to resolve.

I can't help feeling that Cicilline is an extortionist, that this would all die in committee with a nice fat Apple donation to his campaign.

 

[Saturnine]

Antitrust really is ridiculous. They ignore genuine monopolies and anti competitive practises while making frankly crazy decisions on other things.

What’s next? Selling iPhones without iOS? Giving the user the option of installing Android?

I do try to think at things from all points of view but sometimes it feels like, if a company does a good job and users choose to use their products and services you’ll eventually be punished by antitrust laws. In the meantime, companies who haven’t built their own platform and haven’t invested a fraction of Apple’s R&D costs cry foul

 

[msp3]

By this sort of logic, when you buy a car the manufacturer would not be allowed to sell you wheels, an engine, seats, and windows? If you buy a house it's not allowed to come with a roof, running water, electricity, or plumbing!? Are these people that we "elect" morons or just plain dishonest?

 

[tranceme]

Microsoft was almost broken up because they installed IE on Windows PCs 25 years ago. What Apple, Microsoft, and Google have gotten away with the past 15 years or so is incredibly far beyond that.

This legislation makes total sense and I support it.

Monopolies are a bad thing folks.

So, what you are saying is...don't make good stuff that everyone wants. Because if you do, you can't install it. Makes zero sense. But, if you suck at apps, you can include it. Monopolies are bad when you block other choices. Not because you excel at something. You might be missing the point of what Microsoft did. IE sucked and they did intentional bad things to block competition. This is different.

 

[ikramerica]

How would you download Chrome if Safari was not on the machine.

In the mid 90s the ISP I worked for at the time had a CD with software on it, are you suggesting we return to that type of environment. I don't have any way of reading a CD on any computer at home.

Further, MS was making IE exclusivity a condition of LICENSING Windows, which was a monopoly OS that was required to build computers.

Apple makes their own hardware and provides PDA software to make it run. They don’t license iOS nor force venders to support iOS exclusively.

 

[vipergts2207]

But Apple is only the dominant player in mobile in the United States. Worldwide, Android is the market leader. Shouldn't that count? How can a company be called a monopolist if they only have a monopoly in one country?

Well to be fair this legislation is specific to the U.S. In any case, in the EU it's about 70/30 Google/Apple. EU countries may decide that though Apple only accounts for 30% of the market share, that their practices still demand review due to there only being one other major platform. Duopolies don't intrinsically require a 50/50 split, though at some point you move from duopoly to a monopoly. I don't think anyone would classify a 95/5 market as a duopoly, but I think you can make the case that a 70/30 market can be.

 

[Wags]

One hand not knowing what the other is doing.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's not silly because I disagree with it. It's silly because you're the only person to have ever defined a market that way.

Nope, there are folks all over the place defining the market Apple has a monopoly on as the Apple iPhone and Apple App Stores. Even some lawyers a couple weeks back.

The McDonald's/Burger King market exists only in your head and stretches the definition of what a market is to be utter nonsense. Let's discuss the liquor/potato chip market. It's a real thing because it's what I defined the market as..

No, it doesn’t stretch the definition of a market and the liquor/potato chip market is one that you can study and analyze if you like.

What is the interdependence? Here's one example:

Apple will cut App Store commissions by half to 15% for small app makers

The move is an olive branch from Apple to lawmakers over its App Store business practices, which have been under increasing scrutiny for the past year.

www.cnbc.com

Google cuts app store fees for developers on first million in annual sales

Google's app store change will address some of the developer complaints around app stores and their fees, which have come under scrutiny from regulators.

www.cnbc.com

Apple changes their pricing structure and Google follows after. That was too easy.

So, not only do you think duopoly means “two times monopoly”, you think interdependence means “coincident”.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Gee, the shareholders will not be happy with that. stock becomes a "sell"

Probably not, but it’s not like this is a condition that was set out by Apple. And, you can bet there would be a HUGE black market in iPhones. Would be fun to see, actually Smells like prohibition.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Microsoft was almost broken up because they installed IE on Windows PCs 25 years ago. What Apple, Microsoft, and Google have gotten away with the past 15 years or so is incredibly far beyond that.

Your recollection of the case is quite limited. The IE piece was only one small part of it, and even that you did not describe correctly.

The some of the major components of the case included:

• PC vendors being forced to pay for a copy of windows for every machine they sold, even if they did not install one (making it so that Linux/FreeBSD systems got no price advantage).
• PC vendors were prevented from installing another browser (even if they left IE on the machine).
• Microsoft detected certain software (Digital Research‘s Gem was one example) and then then generated spurious errors blaming that software.
• Microsoft Windows would not run on DR-DOS even though it was completely compatible (they checked for certain hidden version strings).
• Microsoft provided private APIs for their Office Suite that enabled it to do things that Word Perfect was not able to do.
• many more things.

In addition, they controlled 90% of the desktop operating system market, giving them effective control over the space.

This legislation makes total sense

This legislation makes no sense.

and I support it.

Right up until they implement it and you have to deal with the disaster it would be.

Monopolies are a bad thing folks.

Apple certainly is not a monopoly in the mobile phone space, nor for that matter is Google.

Huawei has 8.6% of the global smart phone market using the Android Open Source Platform. They use none of Google’s services and have none of their restrictions.

Samsung has 17% of the global smart phone market. While they run Android, they pre-install their own apps, application store and Samsung Pay service.

Apple has 23.4% of the global smart phone market.

Other smaller players control 30.3% of the global smart phone market. Many of those use AOSP, but let us take a very low estimate of 8%.

That leave Google with about 43% of the market over which they substantial control. Despite those who claim it is a duopoly, it just is not true.

 

[DocMultimedia]

no one isnt prohibiting you to still use the same apps. but it gives you to freedom not to install useless crap in your phone.

What is useless? The camera app? The mail app? The store app? The browser app? Will you decide? Please just buy an Android and get their version. Or that Amazon phone. Ugh. You choose what to buy, and then you choose what to install.

 

[v3rlon]

Microsoft was almost broken up because they installed IE on Windows PCs 25 years ago. What Apple, Microsoft, and Google have gotten away with the past 15 years or so is incredibly far beyond that.

This legislation makes total sense and I support it.

Monopolies are a bad thing folks.

Microsoft had 95%+ market share of home computers back then.
Apple has ~50% of the phones. (US, not Global as someone else referenced above)

See the difference?

If you didn't like Windows, you didn't have a real choice.
If you wo not like iOS, you can go to the platform that does all those things you want and be happy there.

 

[jmgregory1]

Regardless of how ridiculous this action by the government is, monopoly laws apply to all industries and protect you from a lot of bad things like extremely high priced internet and cellular plans.

Point is, Apple isn’t a monopoly. They’re a successful company designing and selling hardware and software that was and continues to be a minor player compared to the PC industry and Android on the mobile side. This proposed government intervention wouldn’t protect me from anything. How about the government spending more of my money on things I and a lot of other people would like - universal healthcare would be one thing, or maybe spending more money on the public education system, or even pushing to transition away from an oil based economy.

 

[verdi1987]

Same thing that happened with MSFT? I think and search engines back in the 00's. First time you'd launch a random list of search engines would appear and you'd choose your default. But was meant to make it more fair?

I forget the specifics so I might be off a bit but very much remember that or something really close to that being a thing.

I think it's fair to go that route. First time you launch your phone, handful of apps you can choose from or something. I'd MUCH prefer that vs another app store on the devices.

In Europe, as part of a settlement, Windows could not bundle IE and instead presented a list of browsers to choose from.

 

[vipergts2207]

Nope, there are folks all over the place defining the market Apple has a monopoly on as the Apple iPhone and Apple App Stores. Even some lawyers a couple weeks back.


No, it doesn’t stretch the definition of a market and the liquor/potato chip market is one that you can study and analyze if you like.


So, not only do you think duopoly means “two times monopoly”, you think interdependence means “coincident”.

Ok I'm no longer going to address the market nonsense you have decided to go all in on, even to the point of believing that the liquor/potato chip market I made up is a thing.

As far as monopoly versus duopoly goes, there are some distinctions to be sure, but they both have the ability to operate unfairly and greatly impact the markets in which they operate and that is exactly what regulators are looking at here.

And yes, even though the Android app store and the iOS app store have existed for 13 years, they both coincidentally modified their pricing structures within a few months of one another. It was also just a coincident that the modifications to both resulted in the same structure where the split is 85/15 on the developer's first $1 million per year..

 

[Alan Wynn]

But Apple is only the dominant player in mobile in the United States. Worldwide, Android is the market leader. Shouldn't that count? How can a company be called a monopolist if they only have a monopoly in one country?

They do not even have a monopoly here. At most, they control about 50% of the U.S. market, more likely around 48%.

 

[vipergts2207]

They do not even have a monopoly here. At most, they control about 50% of the U.S. market, more likely around 48%.

52.4% and climbing.

Mobile smartphone OS market share U.S. 2018-2024| Statista

Apple's iOS continues to hold the largest share of the smartphone operating systems market in the United States, claiming more than **** of the market in 2024.

www.statista.com

 

[jimothyGator]

Before long Apple may be selling $2k iPhones. An iPhone Pro Max 512 GB will set you back $1400. I can imagine what the rumored folding iPhone will cost. Perhaps you mean why aren't all iPhones $2k? Are you aware that when you increase the price of a product you generally, though not always, see a decrease in sales volume? Is Apple prepared to sell a fraction of the phones they do today? Have you heard of price optimization?

Yes, I'm completely aware of that. In fact, that's my whole point. Let me state this one last time, and try to think long enough to understand it:

Apple can't just impose whatever rules they want, because customers and suppliers won't accept it.

Edit:Why do I waste my time arguing with fools on the internet? You tell me I'm wrong, then restate my exact point to argue against me.

 

[Apple of my eye]

Microsoft had 95%+ market share of home computers back then.
Apple has ~50% of the phones. (US, not Global as someone else referenced above)

See the difference?

If you didn't like Windows, you didn't have a real choice.
If you wo not like iOS, you can go to the platform that does all those things you want and be happy there.

One difference, back in the day there was a single computer per household if you were lucky enough. Nowadays, there is a phone for nearly every pre-teen and older in a home. In the 90's there were just under 100 million house holds in the US. In 2020 the estimated number of smart phones in the US is 294.15 million.

Another difference. I could buy or download software from anywhere and install it on my PC...Not so much on my iPhone.

 

[vipergts2207]

Yes, I'm completely aware of that. In fact, that's my whole point. Let me state this one last time, and try to think long enough to understand it:

Apple can't just impose whatever rules they want, because customers and suppliers won't accept it.

Edit:Why do I waste my time arguing with fools on the internet? You tell me I'm wrong, then restate my exact point to argue against me.

I'm just going to go back to the following two quotes because it's clear you didn't understand them the first time.

They do have the power to dictate arbitrary rules. What they don't have is the power to dictate absurd rules. While you may personally conflate arbitrary with absurd, they're two very different things.

The obvious answer is that Apple sets the terms at something they expect most developers will begrudgingly accept. Customers and suppliers were also buying from and working with AT&T before they were smacked down by the government as well. Acceptance of unfair terms, knowing that the alternative is probably not being in business at all, doesn't magically launder the aforementioned unfair terms into being fair terms.

Hopefully you can grasp it this time.