Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Good for google. People who can't be burdened by a $99 yearly fee probably aren't very successful selling apps.
That is a very western take, ignoring about most of the rest of the world, as well as the fact that developing for iOS mostly requires you to buy a mac too.
 
Good for google. People who can't be burdened by a $99 yearly fee probably aren't very successful selling apps.

They should develop for the Play Store instead and find happiness.
Do you see anyone complaining about the developer fee?

What people are complaining about for a company that rakes in 90 billion in profit is the monopolistic practices which regulators are rightful finally addressing.
 
Everyone collects data on its users and their activities.

As the saying goes, if you aren't paying for the product, then you are the product.
This site you are on collects data on you. Literally the whole internet and connected devices collects data on you even ones you pay for. Your iPhones, TVs, laptops, smart watches, smart speakers, collects data on you and you paid $1000 for it.
 
This site you are on collects data on you. Literally the whole internet and connected devices collects data on you even ones you pay for. Your iPhones, TVs, laptops, smart watches, smart speakers, collects data on you and you paid $1000 for it.
The site we are on collects my data on an anonymous login, via an IP address connected to a VPN, and it feeds ads that are blocked on this browser. Any information I share here is my own decision, as a member of the community.

Are you saying Google is no different than Apple when it comes to privacy? Because they are. Google really wants to track me across devices in a way that Apple, aside from my Apple login usage, does not. If I open the Chrome browser on my iPhone and search something using Google, that's all data that Alphabet uses to feed me ads, not Apple. It's their business model. Apple's business model is hardware, software and services.
 
The new moral seems to be: If you’re too successful, you’re public property now.

That’s a dangerous signal, not just for Apple, but for anyone who hopes to create something enduring in a world increasingly hostile to winners.
Indeed! What a shame the successful companies of Standard Oil and Microsoft got their wings clipped! Government overreach!
 
Indeed! What a shame the successful companies of Standard Oil and Microsoft got their wings clipped! Government overreach!
Standard Oil and Microsoft had ~90% of their respective markets. Apple has <30%

Just because all of you keep pretending Android doesn’t exist (well, at least when it suits your arguments) doesn’t mean Apple has a monopoly.
 
Standard Oil and Microsoft had ~90% of their respective markets. Apple has <30%

Just because all of you keep pretending Android doesn’t exist (when it suits your arguments) doesn’t mean Apple has a monopoly.
Apple holds 100% of the iOS app market. Android does exists, doesn’t mean that on iOS, Apple holds 100% of the market. Just like standard oil held ~90% in the US, but not in Italy. It is just not reasonable to expect someone to move on a single criterion.
 
Apple holds 100% of the iOS app market. Android does exists, doesn’t mean that on iOS, Apple holds 100% of the market. Just like standard oil held ~90% in the US, but not in Italy. It is just not reasonable to expect someone to move on a single criterion.
And Burger King has 100% of the Whopper market. That doesn't mean it has a monopoly on hamburgers.
 
Apple holds 100% of the iOS app market. Android does exists, doesn’t mean that on iOS, Apple holds 100% of the market. Just like standard oil held ~90% in the US, but not in Italy. It is just not reasonable to expect someone to move on a single criterion.
Sure, but that's not how courts define markets under antitrust law. As we already discussed, in the Epic case the judge ruled that appropriate market was mobile game transactions, not iOS game transactions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
And Burger King has 100% of the Whopper market. That doesn't mean it has a monopoly on hamburgers.
You know, as much as anyone, this is just a dumb comparison.

Wish I could’ve used the signature of @AppliedMicro, but I am on mobile haha.

If I were you, I’d read up on the difference between a perfect competition and monopoly/oligopoly.

Briefly, beef is beef, there is little differences between different beef suppliers, so a burger is mostly a burger, and there is very little difference between burgers. And there are plenty of suppliers of beef burgers, so it is easy to choose a store that fits either taste or price, if you are lucky you het a good price for a great burger. There is ‘perfect’ competition.

SmartphoneOSes are unique goods, there are practically only two suppliers/options. These two suppliers have a lot of power to steer the market. And so they do. So there is no real choice, it is the only alternative.

Adding to this, here I only consider from a consumer side, it is more complicated if you also include developers.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but that's not how courts define markets under antitrust law. As we already discussed, in the Epic case the judge ruled that appropriate market was mobile game transactions, not iOS game transactions.
And nothing in that judgement determined whether iOS app distribution is a market or not. So it remains to be seen.
 
$406 billion is more than enough to not let an intermediary with monopoly power charge as they please.

Government and regulatory oversight and intervention is required to ensure competition and prevent intermediaries from exploiting their power anticompetitively.
We have posters who seemingly are against success.

Good job Apple for making money for all. This is capitalism at its best.
 
We have posters who seemingly are against success.

Good job Apple for making money for all. This is capitalism at its best.
With great success comes great power and:
With great power, comes great responsibility. – Spider-Man

And because corporations only like great power, the DMA (and similar legislation in other countries) obliges them to also take the great responsibility.
 
Last edited:
SmartphoneOSes are unique goods, there are practically only two suppliers/options. These two suppliers have a lot of power to steer the market. And so they do. So there is no real choice, it is the only alternative.
Nope. Each manufacturer has their own OS that they control based on forks of the android open source project. As I continue to argue, the real anticompetive force in the smartphone market is Google who has leveraged their search and ad monopolies to enter into anticompetive agreements with almost all its horizontal competitors except Apple for Google Play Services to be installed by default.

If your real concern is competition, and not simply forcing Apple to do what you want, then the first step should be to eliminate Google's control of their own competitors. Continue to get rid of any anti-steering policies. Throw in a limit on commissions and a independent app review board to to make sure Apple isn't stifling innovation or competition. Now you have a consumer friendly strategy that doesn't have the downsides of regulations like the DMA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surferfb
With great success comes great power and:
View attachment 2514779
And because corporations only like great power, the DMA (and similar legislation in other countries) obliges them to also take the great responsibility.
Incorrect. You can make up any reason why the DMA exists. It’s anti-American tech targeting Apple.
 
...which they already derived from hardware sales.


What they do not deserve:
Charging a percentage of everyone else's revenue - without that percentage being subject to alternatives and competition.
Let alone preventing other market participants from communicating and transacting with their customers.
Hardware sales goes for development of R&D on new hardware and new OS work.
 
Nope. Each manufacturer has their own OS that they control based on forks of the android open source project.
It is a skin on top of android, it is still android and they themselves call it android. Also iOS apps aren’t android apps, and are in no way interchangeable. So there is a market for android apps, and one for iOS apps. But again, I’d love to see a judge to take a look at this case.
As I continue to argue, the real anticompetive force in the smartphone market is Google who has leveraged their search and ad monopolies to enter into anticompetive agreements with almost all its horizontal competitors except Apple for Google Play Services to be installed by default.
Good for you, I agree! Nothing to do with this case, though.
If your real concern is competition, and not simply forcing Apple to do what you want, then the first step should be to eliminate Google's control of their own competitors.
Are you still talking about the search engine? I think there are a bunch of cases against google, of which I am happy to see them. Legislation like the DMA is also relevant for Google. I know you are just trying to whatabout this discussion, but even that holds no water.
 
Last edited:
Apple holds 100% of the iOS app market. Android does exists, doesn’t mean that on iOS, Apple holds 100% of the market. Just like standard oil held ~90% in the US, but not in Italy. It is just not reasonable to expect someone to move on a single criterion.
Yes corporations hold a legal monopoly in their own products. And also water is wet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kltmom and Jay Tee
Apple holds 100% of the iOS app market. Android does exists, doesn’t mean that on iOS, Apple holds 100% of the market. Just like standard oil held ~90% in the US, but not in Italy. It is just not reasonable to expect someone to move on a single criterion.
And Sony holds 100% PlayStation, Walmart holds 100% of their stories. iOS isn't a market it a platform in the smart phone market.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.