No it’s not. You’re not buying a phone you’re buying a license to use Apple’s software. It just so happens you can only use it on their hardware.
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. Supreme Court to Review Whether Lawsuit Accusing Apple of App Store Monopoly Should Proceed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Legally, yes, I would say Android has monopoly power. It's why the EU went after them, abuse of monopoly power .
The facts are Microsoft no more had a monopoly with Windows as Apple does with iOS.
Apple's behavior with the App Store is anticompetitive. They're levering their dominance with one space to prohibit others from competing in another space.
The AppStore is great, it gives customers piece of mind knowing the app they are downloading is safe, yes no system is 100% safe a bad app may slip threw but just look at Android, customers are faced with running anti-malware software and scanning and checking apps they buy or download free, we don’t need this in iOS, even if the small price to pay is only one AppStore that is controlled by Apple, they take care of vetting and approving apps so customers can sleep better in bed at night knowing there iPhone is malware free.
Apple has a great store the only thing that would help if they lower there take, 30% is a bit high after all they can easily afford to drop it and still make plenty of profits for the running cost
If customers want they can install apps via other means than the AppStore, free games that have been moded so all in app purchases are free, just something that is kept quiet, why the AppStore is great, if third party get involved more of the moded apps will happen, driving away developers
Apple has a great store the only thing that would help if they lower there take, 30% is a bit high after all they can easily afford to drop it and still make plenty of profits for the running cost
If customers want they can install apps via other means than the AppStore, free games that have been moded so all in app purchases are free, just something that is kept quiet, why the AppStore is great, if third party get involved more of the moded apps will happen, driving away developers
Last edited:
Adding the option of using an additional app stores does not increase the risk for those who choose not to enable it. There is zero downside for those who choose to utilize only the Apple App Store.
So you're saying had Microsoft in the 1990s only allowed apps through their own store that charged a 30% cut, the DOJ would have been cool with that?
Think carefully before you answer.
If I wanted a third party app store I would use Android. I like Android also like Apple. Use Apple so I don't have to see bloat wear from my provider. Also prefer Apple's App store over the Andoid ones.
If only Microsoft could have had you as their lawyer when the DOJ was after them!
Microsoft had no viable competition on the desktop. Apple do have viable competition. Indeed the competition is a sizable majority. What's hard to understand about this?
Yet people are claiming "if you don't like it, don't buy an iPhone." Apple has always sold computers, there has always been a choice.
Either neither were a monopoly or they both are.
Microsoft never would have gotten away with forcing apps through their store and charging a 30% cut. The DOJ would have absolutely shut that down.
[doublepost=1529365562][/doublepost]
I can imagine it. It's called iOS.
Sure they did. They had NeXT, Sun, SGI, OS/2, and even Apple...just to name a few off the top of my head.
[doublepost=1529365775][/doublepost]
Notice your reference to yourself. Others, who like iOS, feel differently. Since adding the capability removes nothing from how you use an iPhone I can't see why you'd object to adding such an option.
No. You're conflating two things here. Microsoft did not get in hot water because they had a monopoly on Windows. That is and was their IP and you cannot have a monopoly on your own IP. The very notion is just nonsense. They got in trouble because they had a de-facto monopoly on desktop Operating Systems and leveraged that in other markets (e.g. browsers)
Apple do not and cannot have a monopoly on iOS. It is their own IP and there is viable non-iOS competition. I have trouble believing anyone arguing otherwise is doing so in good faith to be quite honest.
What if, in the 1990s, Microsoft had started shaking down app developers, demanding a 30% cut, and blocking their apps if they refused to pay up?
Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the DOJ would have turned a blind eye to that?
In the 1990s, let's say Microsoft started shaking down app developers, demanding a 30% cut, and blocking their apps if they refused to pay up.
Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the DOJ would have turned a blind eye to that?
Apple is leveraging their position to prevent people from entering the iOS App Store market. Same issue, different company. What I find surprising is the level to which people are willing to defend Apple on this. Adding the option to use addition app stores doesn't have any negative impact on the end user and adds options. It's a win for the consumer.
That would have been treated as leveraging a monopoly. Since they had a monopoly. Apple do not have a monopoly.
I recall using all of those options. Especially Apple. Remember all those "It's not the quantity of applications but the quality" defense of the Macintosh. I don't know about you but that argument leads me to believe the Macintosh is a viable option. What about all those "studies" of lower TCO that favored the Macintosh. Sounds like the Macintosh was not only viable but beneficial. Or is it your position those arguments didn't have merit?
a) No they're not. There is no "iOS App Store market"
b) Apple are controlling their own IP and are free to do so, since they are not a monopoly
[doublepost=1529366215][/doublepost]
It's my position that Microsoft could have crushed any of these like a bug if they had regarded any of them as anything but a joke. They quite notably invested in Apple as Apple were circling the drain, just to point at them as competition.
There is no competition for iOS apps. You can only get apps from the AppStore. That is a monopoly. I don’t know what is so difficult to understand.
There is no iOS app store market because Apple has leveraged their position to prevent alternatives.
Maybe, maybe not. The reality was there were viable alternatives. I know because I used the Macintosh during that period of time. I had Office available to me. Web browsers, e-mail clients, FTP clients (good old Fetch), graphics programs, math programs, programming languages, etc.
The fact Microsoft did it better doesn't mean there wasn't alternatives.
Apple are free to do so. There are non-iOS options and therefore Apple cannot leverage a monopoly. Again, you are making the argument that Microsoft ever were or could have been in trouble for having a monopoly on Windows. It is, quite obviously, nonsense.
You unfortunately have to pay a $99/year individual developer membership for this privilege, otherwise you have to re-sign the app every 7 days. This is part of the problem, in my opinion, and is an arbitrary restriction.
Apple doesn’t own the IP for non-Apple apps. The person who developed the app owns the IP.