Comment by ApolloFortyNine
2 years ago
It's wild to me to see people defending Apple in the comments here.
60% of Americans own a phone they're not allowed to install third party apps on, and the ONLY way to get apps is to pay a 30% fee to Apple on every purchase.
Imagine if Windows allowed you to only install apps acquired through their store, and with the same 30% fee. Microsoft literally had a huge anti trust case against them for simply setting a default browser, one you could have switched away from at any time.
It's probably the clearest monopoly in America right now. The damage to consumers is immediately visible (30% fee leaves a lot of margin on the table for competitors). Just look at the number of apps that either don't allow you to purchase their subscription on Apple at all, or charge substantially more. It should be a slam dunk case.
> It's wild to me to see people defending Apple in the comments here.
> 60% of Americans own a phone they're not allowed to install third party apps on
One could reasonably conclude that 60% of users have little or no interest in installing apps outside App Store. Nothing "wild" about that.
It's nothing like a slam dunk case. In fact, it's an attempt by DOJ to stretch and redefine the edges of their rights under anti-trust rules.
It's also nothing like Microsoft -- Microsoft was a monopoly, full stop, in the 1990s. They were well over 90% of desktop market share in business, and likely close in consumer. And as 1990s era Microsoft employees will remind you if you ask them -- "there's nothing wrong with being a monopoly, only abusing your monopoly power". Forcing IE on people was considered abuse by the courts of the time, and even then was widely considered to be a result of a Clinton-era DOJ, e.g. politics were involved. As they are now, both progressive anti-big-tech politics, and bipartisan anti-consumer encryption politics.
Today there are hundreds of functional choices you could make for any sane definition of the product categories Apple is in. Mobile phone? Sure - from totally open Pinephone type systems to vanilla Android to stripped-down Android to ... Laptop? yep. Servers/Desktop? Please. Watches? Check.
Are there any major pieces of software that consumers must have that are locked to Apple, and that Apple is charging egregious rent on? Nope. Most Macbook airs are really just browser engines. As of 2020, about 50% of those macbook airs ran Google's chrome as their primary browser.
You might, like me, feel Apple's App store walled garden is on balance a net positive, leaving me with almost no worries related to upgrade problems, my family's phones being compromised by malware, etc, or you might like many others hate the controls, want to root your Android phone and install your own apks directly, and thus choose Android or some other unix-a-like-on-mobile -- more power to you.
What we've seen you won't get the US courts to do is conclude that Apple's huge user base and developer base, controlled through their App store, is somehow a 'public good' that needs to be given away to others that didn't pay to develop, build and market it -- that's pretty much settled. It's valuable, super valuable. It's a competitive moat. But it's not abuse of a monopoly position to have such a thing.
> In fact, it's an attempt by DOJ to stretch and redefine the edges of their rights under anti-trust rules.
Given the incredibly attenuated state of antitrust enforcement in this country, maybe that's not such a bad thing. Going after the most profitable company in human history would make quite a statement, producing a chilling effect to the corporations.
>You might, like me, feel Apple's App store walled garden is on balance a net positive, leaving me with almost no worries related to upgrade problems, my family's phones being compromised by malware, etc, or you might like many others hate the controls
You realize the app store can remain a walled garden, and users can be allowed to install their own applications right?
It's wild to me the number of people who argue for less freedom when the topic of Apple's walled garden comes up.
>It's also nothing like Microsoft -- Microsoft was a monopoly, full stop, in the 1990s.
Plenty of anti trust cases have been brought against companies that don't have 90% of a market. 60+% is quite a lot.
You realize that when you add appstores like Cydia to an iphone that you immediately open them up into gaping security holes right?
I assume you have never managed the devices of teenagers or a large group of millenial office workers.
To me, it being closed is an absolute feature that I value.
2 replies →
What no one seems to be able to explain to my satisfaction is why this logic doesn't also apply to game consoles. The "well they sell it at a loss" argument is not persuasive. That's Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft's choice as a business, it's not the government's role to make their loss-leader business model possible.
> What no one seems to be able to explain to my satisfaction is why this logic doesn't also apply to game consoles.
Sony is currently facing antitrust litigation in multiple jurisdictions over it; more generally, the fact that a particular other actor has not yet been successfully sued under a law for actions similar to those for which some actor is currently being sued does not mean the law does not apply to their actions. It just means they haven't been successfully sued yet.
Regulations come into place when there's consumer harm, and consumers have TONS of choices in regards to games.
The vast majority of the library on Xbox/PS is cross platform. PC gamers are enjoying their vast Steam library and there's plenty of Switch clones that can handle everything from AAA gaming to indy titles.
Also the largest gaming market is on mobile phones by far. So here we are with this antitrust suit.
Consumers are not terribly harmed by this because gaming is a leisure activity while smartphones are critical components of everyday life. Also, no game company has billions of users and there are several players with little moat who actually have to compete to win users so prices come down even if there isn't much cross OS play.
60% of Americans CHOOSE to own a phone that has those features...
I think that is the issue. Android offers (nearly) all of the same functionality and yet people still choose iPhone.
Abusing your ecosystem is one thing (ex. defaulting to Apple Maps for location links, only allowing Safari as default browser), but not allowing 3P app stores seems perfectly within a company's rights.
Amazon isn't forced to list your product and Apple shouldn't be forced to give you access to it's hardware/software users.
>Abusing your ecosystem is one thing (ex. defaulting to Apple Maps for location links, only allowing Safari as default browser), but not allowing 3P app stores seems perfectly within a company's rights.
Is taxing every purchase on your platform for 30% not abusing your ecosystem?
>I think that is the issue. Android offers (nearly) all of the same functionality and yet people still choose iPhone.
iMessage is a non zero cause of this, and looking at the percentage of teens with iPhones, 85+%, likely a colossal cause. Which directly falls into Apple abusing their ecosystem.
That isn't a tax. It is a cost. In the same way you probably don't look at the overhead a clothing store puts on every pair of jeans you buy. You don't have to buy those jeans from that store, but you should realize that every store has a "tax" on clothes they carry.
Apple isn't abusing its ecosystem if users prefer it. I don't follow this logic on your second point.
1 reply →