Apple TV is an Apple product. You want to watch Amazon Prime, use hardware that allows it. No one forced you to buy Apple TV or to watch Amazon Prime. They are choices.
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
I agree that someone like Netflix isn't really helped by the iOS App Store; but that really wasn't what it was designed for. Because, for every Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, etc., there are literally THOUSANDS of indie Developers, who NO ONE would ever find in the vast reaches of the internet.
As for the third category, those who, like the Angry Birds people, start out exceedingly small; but then have their App(s) "go viral", those are few and far-enough between to consider an "outlier". And if the Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. publishers still consider the iOS App Store "deal" to not kick-up a bunch of b.s., sue Apple, etc., then I submit they have put pen-to-paper, and concluded that, while maybe not ideal for their situation, is not worth arguing about. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMICS, AND THE VALUE APPLE IS ADDING WITH THEIR APP STORE!!!
Unlike a bunch of whiney internet-posters.
You are misinformed about what this lawsuit is about. It isn't about a monopoly in smartphone marketshare. Is is about a monopoly in stores that sell iOS apps. Apple has 100% of the market in iOS app stores.
Google does not have 100% of the market in android app stores, there are other stores that sell android apps.
Let's for one moment ignore if Apple has a monopoly in anything. Just having a monopoly is not illegal.
Let's instead ask why Apple prevents iOS devs from selling in other iOS stores like Cydia? Apple will ban devs if they try to sidestep Apple's 30% cut (remember Apple already collects a dev/license fee, the 30% is for hosting and credit card processing fees). Instead of letting devs decide what store to sell in, Apple is forcing them to use only Apple's store. Looks like anticompetitive behavior to me.
Let's instead ask why Apple prevents iOS devs from selling in other iOS stores like Cydia? Apple will ban devs if they try to sidestep Apple's 30% cut (remember Apple already collects a dev/license fee, the 30% is for hosting and credit card processing fees). Instead of letting devs decide what store to sell in, Apple is forcing them to use only Apple's store. Looks like anticompetitive behavior to me.
Mac would you mind giving me your opinion on information I shared in an earlier post?
Atari vs Activision
This behavior was long established. Set in place in the 1980’s as a result of Atari vs Activison.
That case is regarding deverloper/license fee. This case is about Apple forcing iOS devs to use Apple's app store to sell their iOS apps. iOS devs already pay a licencing fee.
And your comment about Sony not required to allow 3rd party e shops is not relavent cause Sony allows other physically shops to sell ps4 games. Sony does not have a monopoly on shops that sell ps4 games.
Car analogy: Ford makes cars. Other 3rd parties make engine oil (similar to how other companies make iOS apps). Now ford adds a detection device to check if the engine oil contains a special ingredient (similar to DRM/lockout methods) and sells that ingredient to oil companies only if they sell their oil in the Ford store. Oh yeah, Ford decides they will take 30% of oil sales thru their store.
The special ingredient is like the dev fee. Those companies are already paying the fee but Ford is forcing them to sell in the Ford store where ford can take a 30% cut as well.
Having an alternate app store doesn't mean those companies can skipped Apple's app approval process. Just means those companies can choose a different hosting/cc processing providor.
Last edited:
That is such a sucky trolling approach, if you don’t like it don’t buy it.
THis is what the definition of monopoly is, a company that abuses its market power to restrict access for people like me for features I want.
For example I can watch Netflix on my Apple TV but not amazon prime. Not sure who is denying the app, Apple or Amazon.
[doublepost=1529540258][/doublepost]
I look it from a different point of view. The English language is not a static beast. Monopoly, anti competitive, and so on are defined legally and that is all that matters. Why? Because a monopoly is all about abuse of position. Who is in a place to abuse their position? Companies like google, ms, Facebook, Apple and so on. That does not say they all do it but when they do, they are abusing their market power. Monopoly is one word or phrase that describes this practice. Just like antitrust.
So because of the above that is why I don’t think you are correct.
First, that’s nowhere near the definition of monopoly; a monopoly is not, in and of itself, illegal or wrong in any way. What you’ve said is more a definition of abuse of monopoly power, which is illegal.
Second, there a lot of entitlement there. Why does any company need to cater to you? Or anyone? A company, no matter how large, is free to decide what features they include in their own product, as long as they aren’t leveraging power in one area to gain control in another (this is very general and one example of many, but it’s the one most people think of when the hear monopoly).
Personally I’d say Apple is abusing its power in a lot of areas with varying degrees of abuse. By letting one provider on its platform but not another is abuse. If I can get Netflix and if it were Apple that were denying Amazon prime movies, then that I’d abuse of power. The powers that be need to open up Apple products so that I can choose where I can download apps. Not because of my entitlement but because Apple is setting unfair rules.
Yes, the whole point there is that consumers/developers were already accustomed to the pre-appstore installation methods. Their expectations were such that anything could be installed from the web or various stores. The mac app store came along and just added the apple vetting process to enhance security.
Interestingly enough, look at the quality and quantity of the apps on the iOS store, the one Cube seems to lament. Compare that to what you find on the Mac in general. Sure there are some gems, but nothing quite like the polish and standard found on iOS.
I think the only way another app delivery method could be allowed, is if iOS would explicitly (possibly repeatedly) warn the user that any damage to data or hard/software due to tertiary app malfunction will not be Apple's responsibility. But then who figures out what went wrong? Apple? the developer? the third party app store? the user?? and what about the little old lady who's grand-kids loaded the would be cydia store up and now her phone has some nasty virus... and she lost her photos of her dear departed husband and kitten 'Muggles'? Shes going to blame Apple like everyone else.
Apple's probably mitigating risk by keeping the status-quo of expectations.
Having alternate app stores doesn't mean no app approval process nor does it mean devs don't have to pay licensing fees.
Ps4 devs have to get Sony to approve their game before it can be sold, but those devs get to sell their game in any store like EB Games, bestbuy, or even their own website. I'm pretty sure EB games doesn't take 30%.
I don't know if things have changed since then, but when I worked in retail (books and software), the markup over wholesale was typically 100%. That is, the seller would take 50% of MSRP. (If we sold below MSRP, as we often did, the retailer may be be less, though the publisher might fund the sale).
So you're probably right; EB Games doesn't take 30%; they take 50%.
As I understand it it’s around 5-10% on new games. Much more on used games. What I’m mystified about is why anyone think its relevant. “GameStop have thin margins so Apple should too”? What kind of magical thinking gets someone there?
You are looking at it wrong. Apple is an app platform. If I can get Netflix app on my Apple TV, i can also expect I can get any app I want from any supplier.
When Apple says I can get one app but not another because Apple has a tantrum, then that is monopoly abuse/antitrust.
The choice argument is way overused by Apple fanbois to try tho shoot down valid arguments when the fanboi cannot argue on other merits.
What next, Ford cars that can only be fixed at a ford dealership?
A Tesla that I can only put new wheels on it from Tesla.
A tv that can only show channels from one network?
If I only had the choice of repairing fords at ford dealerships etc then blah blah...
Ever heard of Hobson’s choice?
Are you really advocating for that?
I take it your not a developer from your answer.
Apples control lessens as other app stores are available but that is a great thing. There are lots of things that Apple restricts that would be available in open app stores and a more open api basis. This benefits us developers and consumers who would benefit greatly from choice.
Those consumers like you whom are happy with the stays quo can choose to keep doing what works for them. So the old lady will never have any issues with her photos (well apart from the issues that Apple introduces due to its limited resources).
For better or worse, depending on what side you are on, this will most likely take years to sort out.
People are misunderstanding others when they are discussing the console arguments.
Am I allowed, as a developer, to create a game and release it on my website for users on a PS4 or Xbox to download and install? Giving Sony/Microsoft no cut?
If I were to want to make a new Blu Ray player app for Xbox, I would need to go through the Microsoft Store for it to be able to be released on the console.
This will become a slippery slope if it goes through. Everything would need to be opened up then. Xbox is no different that iPhone. I am forced to go through Microsoft in some way to release anything on the Xbox. Same with iPhone.
Physical media and other distribution methods do not matter in these examples. And as others have said, I would not be surprised if PS5 and Xbox Two? Have no disc drive.
If this succeeds, and they do not go after Sony and Microsoft, then this is entirely people just going after Apple because it is Apple, and not for doing what they consider to be the right thing.
And has anyone actually noticed how things got worse in Windows 10? What exactly changed with the Microsoft ruling? It still came with Internet Explorer by default. Now in Windows 10, if you use any other browsers, you will constantly get notified to try edge.
Am I allowed, as a developer, to create a game and release it on my website for users on a PS4 or Xbox to download and install? Giving Sony/Microsoft no cut?
If I were to want to make a new Blu Ray player app for Xbox, I would need to go through the Microsoft Store for it to be able to be released on the console.
This will become a slippery slope if it goes through. Everything would need to be opened up then. Xbox is no different that iPhone. I am forced to go through Microsoft in some way to release anything on the Xbox. Same with iPhone.
Physical media and other distribution methods do not matter in these examples. And as others have said, I would not be surprised if PS5 and Xbox Two? Have no disc drive.
If this succeeds, and they do not go after Sony and Microsoft, then this is entirely people just going after Apple because it is Apple, and not for doing what they consider to be the right thing.
And has anyone actually noticed how things got worse in Windows 10? What exactly changed with the Microsoft ruling? It still came with Internet Explorer by default. Now in Windows 10, if you use any other browsers, you will constantly get notified to try edge.
I’m not misinformed about the lawsuit. I was responding to someone else’s comment. Read the thread. My post never said that’s what the lawsuit was about.