Slashdot Mirror
US Top Court Leans Toward Allowing Apple App Store Antitrust Suit (reuters.com)
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared open to letting a lawsuit proceed against Apple that accused it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications and causing consumers to overpay. From a report: The nine justices heard an hour of arguments in an appeal by the Cupertino, California-based technology company of a lower court's decision to revive the proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in California in 2011 by a group of iPhone users seeking monetary damages. The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store and then taking a 30 percent commission from the purchases. The case may hinge on how the justices will apply one of its past decisions to the claims against Apple. That 1977 ruling limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged rather than indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others.
Every video game console maker has a monopoly on their own game stores. How is this different? Are they being investigated, too?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I agree that as long as there is another more open-ecosystem alternative that is a viable competitor, like Android, then people should be able to choose from between a more quality-controlled, uniformly designed, closed system (Apple), and the more open alternative.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly. And it's fairly simple for customers to switch.
This does not need government interference in the market.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
As part of my campaign to federally regulate the number of fart and note taking apps, I feel it's important to set a precedent that the government has utter control over the composition and the workings of the entire App market across all devices until the (also federally regulated) heat death of the universe.
In fact in the end they will even oversee the exact number of times that Slashdot guy who goes "appity app app" can (or cannot) post.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
i think they should just add a "do you trust this source" feature like android so you can install from anywhere rather than just the app store
BR legally speaking i lean more towards your line of thinking people can choose to be protected from themselves or they can use android
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You can buy PlayStation 4 games at Walmart, on Amazon, GameStop, EA.com etc. Sony does not have a monopoly on PS4 games.
The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store and then taking a 30 percent commission from the purchases.
I don't get how this is a monopoly without contorting the definition of the word into something utterly useless. If it was such a terrible deal for software vendors then why do they persist in using Apple's platform? There are alternatives which are actually considerably more popular by unit volume and more open to third parties. I don't see the public interest here.
And if the argument is that Apple is taking too big a cut then the argument is de-facto that the government should engage in price fixing which is almost always a terrible idea. What is the "right" amount? 5%? 20%? 50%? For any number greater than zero they are asking the government to determine a market price and the government is terrible at doing that especially when there is no compelling public interest in doing so.
This isn't just about Apple or video game consoles. Do you want a future where the only way to get software onto any device you buy is through the device manufacturer's store, where they charge a 30% tax^h^h^hfee? Or do you want a future where manufacturers only charge a token transaction fee to get software onto your device?
Google/Android has the right model IMHO. If you don't feel confident in your knowledge about tech to protect yourself, you can stick to the Google Play store and rely on Google to protect you. But if you want you can strike out on your own and get apps from different stores, or side-load them. It is, after all, your phone, not Apple's. When a company completely locks down access to devices like Apple does, they essentially create a monopoly for themselves. Not a monopoly to consumers, but a monopoly to software sellers. The only way to sell stuff to iOS devices owners is via Apple's store. They've set themselves up as an unavoidable middleman, which is something that should never be allowed.
Because the U.S. legal system operates based on case law, they don't have to go after video game consoles. If the lawsuit against Apple succeeds (and it holds up through appeals), then that sets a binding precedent. Any video game console maker attempting to fight off similar lawsuits would thereafter immediately lose in the first round of court because of the precedent. Or chipped printer ink cartridge manufacturers. Or manufacturers bricking devices repaired with third party screens.
Ugh, accidentally hit submit instead of preview.
Or the biggest fish of them all - cable service monopolies. They argue they're not a monopoly because they don't own 100% of the customer market. But they do own 100% of the market to access the customers they have. Which is why they're able to pull off things like extort money from Netflix for access to those customers.
This is a suit by the customers, not the developers. The apple users claim that by not allowing them to install apps from anywhere else is a monopoly. They are too dumb to see that this is part of the superior quality and security that they are constantly praising apple for and removing that walled garden will just reduce the reputation of their beloved products. They also don't seem to realize that they could always just use android phones if they want those features, you cannot keep your cake and eat it too.
As for their argument that the developers couldnt sue on the antitrust grounds so they are bring the suit as customers, that is because developers are not dumb and can choose not to publish on apples platform if they are unable to make a profit due to apple taking their cut. This is a rather simple business calculation, developers have an estimate about how much they can charge for their software, they also know the approximate reach of a product and the cost of development as well. If it wasn't profitable then you wouldn't have so many BS apps that don't do much of anything on there.
If apple looses and is forced to let people install software from sources outside of their walled garden, expect to hear a litany of complaints about malware, scams, instability and other associated problems.
in other words: Users are dumb and should not use the legal system to force a company to behave the way they want them to and instead go and buy the product that already allows them to do so.
O-AC here, how the fuck is that considered "flamebait" lol? The point stands for any company, I don't understand these phone twits and their gang warfare mindset.
But calling Apple a monopoly simply for providing the protected app store and mandating that for warranty service is like calling GM a monopoly because they put tires on the cars at the factory and recommend safe sizes.
First, "safe sizes" still allow buying third-party tires meeting GM's spec. Second, in the case of cars, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies.
MS got blasted in the 90's for trying to force people to use IE.
That's because Microsoft WAS a monopoly. They had over 90% market share in desktop operating systems. There literally weren't any viable alternatives. Apple has something like 30% market share in smartphones. In what universe is that a monopoly.?
Apple has no right to dictate how I use my hardware- they represent a majority share of the mobile market.
Entitled much? First off Apple does NOT have a majority share of the mobile market. Second, Apple isn't telling you how to use your hardware. You can do whatever you want with it and they cannot say shit about it. But the flipside is that Apple isn't under any obligation to cooperate with you regarding the software or services or what hardware they sell you if it isn't in their interest. What benefit does Apple get from allowing sideloading and other hacks? It's not going to make them one additional penny. You want to connect to Apple's ecosystem then you'll play by Apple's rules. If you don't, that's fine - go buy something else. You seem to be under the delusion that Apple should have to cater to your particular interests and that's not how it works nor should it be.
The ability to sideload and have additional app stores is one of the reasons why I left Apple.
Which is how it is supposed to work. If Apple doesn't offer you what you want you go elsewhere. If Apple had 90% market share then maybe there is an argument against them as a monopoly but the fact is they don't and probably never will.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly. And it's fairly simple for customers to switch.
When Android came out, the iTunes Store was still using single-vendor digital restrictions management (DRM) on purchased music. It didn't stop that practice until sometime in 2009, meaning users would lose their music when switching to early Android phones. Even in 2018, the iTunes Store and App Store uses single-vendor DRM on purchased movies, purchased books, and purchased apps. Switching would require purchasing access to the same works all over again, provided each work's publisher offers that work on Google Play Store at all.
When the DOJ ruled against Microsoft in 1999, Thomas Penfield Jackson said the existence of Apple didn't matter because Microsoft had monopoly on Windows. Ditto for Apple on iPhone.
Video games can still be purchased from retailers
Only the larger games get a physical release. Any console game whose scope is not big enough for a physical release is stuck on the console maker's paid download store.
It depends on the political environment. Anti-trust enforcement is heavily tied to prosecutors and judges selected and influenced by the political process.
I used to think Democrats were more likely to be for regulating monopolies and near-monopolies to encourage competition, but now it depends on more complex factors, such as whether the CEO favors the party in power, and how much the company gives in campaign donations. Apple has cranked up their lobbying.
Table-ized A.I.
How does one manufacture a working PlayStation 4 game disc to sell "at Walmart, on Amazon, GameStop" without going through Sony?
It is OBVIOUS from the FACTS that people do NOT buy Apps directly from Apple; but rather THROUGH Apple.
The simplest fact which proves this is: App Developers (Publishers) are free to set the PRICE of the App (including FREE). Obviously, if the Publisher of the App is setting the Selling Price, AND the Publisher of the App is writing the "Ad Copy" for the App's Listing in the App Store, AND the Publisher of the App is deciding on the Category(ies) that the App is Listed-Under, then it is the Publisher that is simply listing his wares in Apple's Store Catalog, for which Apple charges a 30% commission for hosting, payment processing, indexing, etc.
Since Users purchase their Apple mobile products with the understanding that the main source (but not the ONLY Source! *) of Apps is the Apple App Store, and since Apple certainly doesn't hold a "monopoly" position in ANY market, there simply is no question of anti-trust here.
* Since iOS 8, Apple has allowed Users to install Apps from Source Code Projects using XCode, and from .ipa files using Cydia Impactor (which runs on MacOs, Windows and Linux).
Ford cant force you to buy Ford oil changes or parts from dealership. You are free to purchase parts and services from anywhere, and not void your warranty, and install them on your vehicle; including chip/software tuning and reprogramming.
How is a phone different from a car?
Ford is free to TRY to force those things, and consumers are free to buy other brands of cars if and when they do. This is legal because they are not a monopoly. Likewise, Apple is not a monopoly either, with 43.5% of US smartphone owners running some form of iOS. This should have been thrown out on prima facie definitions.
Precedent is only binding in the circuit court in which the precedent was set.
Even so, the line of reasoning underlying a particular decision can prove persuasive in other circuits, if only because a court of appeals doesn't want to have egg on face from its decisions getting overturned.
Only Sony can manufacture discs for PlayStation consoles. Only Microsoft can manufacture discs for Xbox consoles. Only Nintendo can manufacture cartridges for Nintendo Switch consoles and Nintendo 3DS handhelds. The console maker can choose to approve each title for a physical release or not and for a paid download release or not. And based on console makers' behavior over the past two and a half console generations, I'm under the impression that console makers are more likely to approve a lower-budget game for a paid download release than for a physical release.
mobile smartphones with apps is a market.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Just get a Lotus Elise!
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Iphone app store (obviously!) cannot be a monopoly, because Iphone is not the only smartphone brand/device!
Apple's App Store is the only store that sells apps that play on the same device as movies and books purchased before Google Play Store existed. Or is it better to have to carry two devices: one for your old purchased movies, books, and apps, and one for your new purchased apps?
Apple (as a private company)
Since when? What sort of equity firms would even be capable of taking AAPL off Nasdaq?
that the original iPhone did not come with any third party apps at all. Only Apple-created apps.
Originally, the mobile network providers had all the control, and Apple believed those network providers would be paranoid about allowing arbitrary bandwidth-guzzling and potentially dangerous apps onto their wireless networks.
As a next step, Apple opened up to risk-controlled, quality-controlled third-party apps, which also had to not take over the phone or compete directly with core Apple app functions, so there would be a standard for those, and also a business benefit to the original mover, Apple.
Competitors at the time were companies like Nokia, Blackberry, Palm, remember them?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
That being the " Service " department at your local car dealership.
If I'm not mistaken, the courts basically told dealerships to f*** right off when they demanded folks bring their cars into a " certified $brand_name dealer " or use only " certified $brand_name parts " for all service and warranty related issues lest you void your warranty. All at a considerable markup on parts of course. . . . . .
I would suspect the end ruling on this will flow along similar lines.
The relevant docs can be found here:
https://partners.playstation.n...
They do not have a 30% royalty like Apple does.
If the case against Apple is won by the plaintiffs, someone could try to file suit against Sony, though they'd have a weaker case.
It's about time. Apple has been allowed to use government agencies to steal legitimate parts at the border, relentlessly stolen software innovations for years, locked vendors and users into an ecosystem where they must play by Apple's rules. It's about time we do something about it.
That's ALL total horseshit.
1. Apple can't "use government agencies" any more than any other entity can.
2. Apple hasn't stolen anything any more than any other company. That is the essence of innovation and progress.
3. NO ONE is "locked in". Don't like Apple? DON'T BUY IT! See? Wasn't that easy?
Apple didn't promise an open ecosystem and then pull the rug out, you knew it when you bought it. There's no legal compelling reason for them to be forced to accept to undermine their system and run unapproved 3rd party junk.
If there were, their anti-jailbreaking stance would be illegal also. And it isn't.
Exactly!
I agree that as long as there is another more open-ecosystem alternative that is a viable competitor, like Android, then people should be able to choose from between a more quality-controlled, uniformly designed, closed system (Apple), and the more open alternative.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly. And it's fairly simple for customers to switch.
This does not need government interference in the market.
Precisely!
i think they should just add a "do you trust this source" feature like android so you can install from anywhere rather than just the app store
BR legally speaking i lean more towards your line of thinking people can choose to be protected from themselves or they can use android
They DO do EXACTLY that when you are installing Open Source from another Publisher, and possibly when you install .ipa files directly from another Publisher.
Non-free software should be banned. Copyright needs to die.
Spoken like someone who has never written a single byte of code.
"This is legal because they are not a monopoly."
Likewise, Apple is not a monopoly either, with 43.5% of US smartphone owners running some form of iOS.
a) Monopoly does not require a sole vendor; you can have monopoly power and abuse it without being the only game in town. (See Microsoft's antitrust suit) 43% is huge; especially when the other smartphone OS is basically controlled by another single vendor. So we have a duopoly at best.
b) No one said they have have monopoly on smartphones. They have a monopoly on iphone apps.
Monopolies aren't inherently illegal. But they are subject to review and regulation in the public interest. In a case like this one element that strengthens the case against apple is that the consumer is tied to apple with an expensive phone. For a consumer to change what apps they buy they have to abandon a *separate* expensive product in the phone itself.
If I get pissed at chevron, i can just start buying gas somewhere else. I don't have to get a whole different car. I can get replacement parts from 3rd parties, I can get service from 3rd parties, i can install a stereo made by a 3rd party. etc etc. I can exercise my freedom to buy goods and services from whoever i want, without having to get a new car first.
Likewise, if get pissed at google play, i can get apps somewhere else. And in fact I do generally get my android apps from f-droid, and most of my games are from the humblebundle store for android. If I get pissed at steam there are some games i won't be able to buy, but there are plenty of other stores willing to provide me with PC software. I don't have to buy a new computer.
See the difference?
Now you can argue (rightfully) that consumers (should) know the deal with apple going in so caveat emptor; and that's a fair argument. But that doesn't automatically make it legal beyond reproach; the court should hear it.
You can also argue (rightfully) that its similar too or even exactly the same thing console makers do; and that's a good argument too. I do think there is a qualitative difference between a toy and an almost essential tool though; such that consumers don't necessarily need the same protection from Nintendo with respect to the availability of DS software as they do for their smartphones. Again that's a determination for the court.
Personally, I think Apple's store monopoly should be broken for the good of the market as a whole. There is a LOT of stuff that should be available that isn't or that is more of pain than it should be because of Apple's store monopoly. It's *the* primary reason I don't use an Apple phone myself.
Apple can't "use government agencies" any more than any other entity can.
So if Tim Cook calls up his Congressman he'll get no more help from the government than would a small business owner with 5 employees?
No, it's not. You can buy a BMW, and you can buy a Toyota engine from lots of people, and you can fit the two together if you like. Apple wants it so that you can only buy engines from them - no one else. And then make it impossible for you to install any engine without their express permission.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How is a phone different from a car?
I don't want to carpool with you this morning. Thanks all the same.
This isn't just about Apple or video game consoles. Do you want a future where the only way to get software onto any device you buy is through the device manufacturer's store, where they charge a 30% tax^h^h^hfee? Or do you want a future where manufacturers only charge a token transaction fee to get software onto your device?
It's not Apple's job to create a better product than Apple, that's what competition is for. Has Apple interfered with the manufacture, distribution or sale of alternative smartphones? Has Apple refused or punished apps for being interoperable with alternatives? Has Apple abused their control over the platform to push out third party software in favor of their own products? If no, then I really don't see the problem because they've not interfered in the creation of a device that "only charge a token transaction fee to get software onto your device". Just like app developers can offer free ad supported and paid apps or they can pick just one. It's not a monopoly that you have to pick a different app if you want a different business model. Nor a different phone.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Apple can't "use government agencies" any more than any other entity can.
So if Tim Cook calls up his Congressman he'll get no more help from the government than would a small business owner with 5 employees?
That's not "Using a government agency". Sorry.
Then by your own argument MSFT shouldn't have been dealt an anti-trust in the 90s since Apple existed then, was easy enough to buy (and had several popular models such as the Bondi Blue iMacs) and was easy enough to switch so therefor MSFT should have been able to do whatever they wanted.
Or maybe, juuust maybe, its not whether there is any competition but whether it exerts undo influence on a market and one would be pretty damn hard pressed to argue that Apple can't force changes to the market, just look at how Apple was able to kill Adobe Flash by simply refusing to allow it on the iPhone. Before iPhone Flash ruled the net, especially for casual games, after iPhone refused it? It was dead in less than 3 years, its market dried up and blew away. If that isn't undue influence then IDK what is, if a single company can kill something the size of Flash simply by refusing to allow it on their platform I really don't see how this is any different than MSFT forcing web devs to support IE quirks by shoving IE on everyone. Again there was competition for IE, Netscape and Opera existed and you could switch, didn't help web devs any.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
That's not "Using a government agency". Sorry.
Congress is not a government agency, nor has the power to influence other government agencies? Do tell.
if Sony charged a high licensing fee, that'd be reflected in the price of their games, which would drive people to buy Xbox Ones.
Sony can get away with it for current PS4 owners by setting its fee just high enough that the difference in fees over the course of owning a PlayStation 4 is less than the cost of the Xbox One hardware.
When grocery stores take higher cuts, that's reflected in the prices of the items sold in their store, which drives people to competing grocery stores.
In John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, suggestions to shop at other than the company's convenience store are routinely shot down with "Gallon a gas."
Likewise, if Apple is taking too large of a cut with iOS apps, there's really nothing substantiative stopping consumers from jumping ship to its thriving competitor: Android.
There's a bit of a difference here. It's common to own and regularly use more than one competing console but not more than one competing smartphone. Switching means you lose access to movies purchased from iTunes Store, books purchased from iTunes Store, and applications purchased from the App Store.
the vast majority of productivity apps either require no data migration or have a documented process for easily doing so
Productivity apps.
The annual developer fee is very very very low
Except for developers who happen to have been born in a country whose currency won't buy a lot of United States dollars.
Antitrust != monopoly.
Yes, antitrust laws exist to prevent the monopoly abuses of the past, but they affect companies regardless of whether the company is a monopoly. The closer you get to being a monpoly, the more scrutiny you get, and the more likely the government is to decide that you're worth going after, but there's nothing inherently preventing me or the government from going after the owner of a single food truck in the Bay Area if the owner manages to find a way to violate antitrust laws.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The big difference is that Apple's SDK terms and conditions make it nearly impossible (and maybe actually impossible) to legally distribute app binaries outside of the App Store. If Apple runs into trouble legally, it will probably stem from that limitation.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Apple does not control consumers
Antitrust law does not concern itself with whether consumers are controlled, but rather, markets.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
There is no doubt they are overcharging by huge factor. Amazon would create a store, like they did for Android, where they charge a much smaller fee to developers but they simply can't. It's hard enough competing on Android for another "store" app besides being completely excluded on Apple or forced to take 30% from your store app's sales.
That's not "Using a government agency". Sorry.
Congress is not a government agency, nor has the power to influence other government agencies? Do tell.
Ok, that's not what you meant by the term "using". You implied that Apple said "Jump", and unnamed "government agencies" said "How high?"
If so, you're gonna have to provide more than a tinfoil-hat-driven allegation.
you can stick to the Google Play store and rely on Google to protect you.
But Google don't protect you at all here - there's no review process, and anybody can upload any app to the store and have it globally available in minutes. If you want a store that does actively vet what's available, then you have no choice but to use Apple devices. Added to which, the ecosystem that Apple have created has no competitor. Apple Photos syncs all your edits, across all your (apple) devices, in a non-destructive way. This alone is worth the price of admission.
Plus, you can install non-apple-vetted software on your device. You can download, build and install software through xcode for instance - However, I do agree that this isn't sufficient control over your own device, and it's time that the freedom to control your own devices should be available to everyone, always. This goes far, far beyond Apple. This covers your playstation, your car's ECMs, your home router, the software that runs inside nearly every computer that sits in your house. Why apple is consistently the target of this discussion is a bit beyond me. They make phones, for god's sake. What about John Deere, and their signed firmware for their tractor ECMs? What about your TV? Every company is trying to lock down their hardware, and it needs to stop.
The big difference is that Apple's SDK terms and conditions make it nearly impossible (and maybe actually impossible) to legally distribute app binaries outside of the App Store. If Apple runs into trouble legally, it will probably stem from that limitation.
Again, this was changed five or more years ago, with iOS 8.
How else would there be repositories of .ipa files (compiled iOS App Binaries), the files therefrom being LEGALLY installable on NON-JAILBROKEN iOS devices, using Cydia Impactor?
If so, you're gonna have to provide more than a tinfoil-hat-driven allegation.
So Tim Cook can get a US Congressman on the phone or likely in person any time he chooses but you don't think that ability offers him any more influence of our government than a small business or any of us?
antitrust laws exist to prevent the monopoly abuses of the past, but they affect companies regardless of whether the company is a monopoly
Right. Let's go straight to the source. The Sherman defines "every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations" as a criminal needing punishment. In fact, that's almost the entire thing. Very short, very broad. (Of course it's backed up by a huge body of case law.)
Nothing about monopolies there, it's about monopolists and what they do or attempt to do. The usual mob of deniers ought to keep that in mind, instead of wanking on about what is and is not a monopoly.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly.
The Sherman act doesn't care. The question is whether Apple has monopolized, attempted to monopolize or conspired to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.
Case law goes on to define a coercive monopoly as "a firm that is able to raise prices, and make production decisions, without risk of competition arising to draw away their customers." Sounds like Apple? You betcha.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Apple interfered with the manufacture, distribution or sale of alternative smartphones?
This lawsuit is about "breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications." So, exactly which alternative I-phone did you have in mind?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
It should be illegal to manufacture or imported for sale any device which has vendor/reseller limitations applied to privilege escalation preventing users from obtaining superuser. The wording would be tricky, of course, but I'm sure we could swing it.
My kids need the same right to tinker, enhance, and learn that I enjoyed 30 years ago.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
3. NO ONE is "locked in". Don't like Apple? DON'T BUY IT!
But why? I can vote for folks who will enshrine market/appstore competition into law, so that I could (in theory) buy an Apple device. They win.. I win. We all win. Why wouldn't I vote that way?
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
If so, you're gonna have to provide more than a tinfoil-hat-driven allegation.
So Tim Cook can get a US Congressman on the phone or likely in person any time he chooses but you don't think that ability offers him any more influence of our government than a small business or any of us?
So, if you're right, the problem really comes down to how any potential "greater influence" is used.
3. NO ONE is "locked in". Don't like Apple? DON'T BUY IT!
But why? I can vote for folks who will enshrine market/appstore competition into law, so that I could (in theory) buy an Apple device. They win.. I win. We all win. Why wouldn't I vote that way?
Sorry. The world doesn't work that way.
1. Sure they can. One phone call to Customs is all it takes. You seriously think that major corporations don't have any pull with the government? With the US government being the poster child for corporate-influenced system?
Here's one man's story of how Apple caused his Mac-compatible batteries seized at the border. It's not a joke or an exaggeration, this is really happening. For the entire story, see the sequel which goes into depth.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Abuse of monopoly position doesn't require a specific percentage of some market (who would get to define the boundaries of a given market?), it simply requires the ability to use the position in one market to restrict competition in another market.
That is true but the fact remains that Apple does NOT have a monopoly under any reasonable definition of the term. Android smartphones collectively sell more units than Apple does by a pretty substantial margin. The market is for smartphones, not for products made by Apple.
The argument is that Apple uses its position as the hardware manufacturer to eliminate competition in the software sales/distribution (i.e. retail store) market and, to a lesser extent, the software creation market (since it's unreasonably difficult to sell any software that Apple doesn't approve of).
Several flaws in that argument. A) Apple is not just a hardware manufacturer and they don't have a monopoly on smartphone hardware. Saying they have a monopoly on Apple products is an idiotic argument. B) Nobody is compelled to sell software on Apple's platform and Apple's platform does not have enough market share or market power to be called a monopoly under any reasonable definition of the term. C) Apple created the market for software on their platform so it's pretty much impossible to argue that they leveraged their hardware to control a market that otherwise would not exist without their hardware. Furthermore they offered the 30% deal right from day one so obviously the market was robust in spite of the cut Apple took. D) Anti-trust arguments are predicated on harm to consumers and it's pretty hard to see how consumers are being deprived of choices or harmed here. There are perfectly viable and available substitute products which actually have greater market share than Apple's products.
Likewise, if get pissed at google play, i can get apps somewhere else.
You kind of made one of the obvious counter arguments to your own post by leaving out a key word in this sentence. You really meant to say...
Likewise, if get pissed at google play, i can get *Android* apps somewhere else.
Because if you don't have the word Android in there, or "iPhone" in Apple's case, things fly completely out the window.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out because saying someone has a monopoly on "iPhone Apps" seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
1. Sure they can. One phone call to Customs is all it takes. You seriously think that major corporations don't have any pull with the government? With the US government being the poster child for corporate-influenced system?
Here's one man's story of how Apple caused his Mac-compatible batteries seized at the border. It's not a joke or an exaggeration, this is really happening. For the entire story, see the sequel which goes into depth.
How can I argue against a bald assertion like "One phone call to Customs is all it takes." It's a self-certifying statement. And with that, I am placed in the situation of attempting to prove a negative. IOW, you have employed an illegal debate tactic. Therefore, your argument is a non-sequitur.
Plus, why is it that the person CLAIMING that "Apple Stole my Batteries" JUST HAPPENS to be Louis Rossman , the "Repair Technician" who is well-known as having some kind of hard-on against Apple. His fraudulent claims are well documented in another bit of yellow journalism he was involved in, in the form of an "Expose" aired on CBC TV:
https://www.macobserver.com/li...
Here's what AppleInsider had to say about Rossman's fraud. Note: Be sure to read the many Comments, some of them written by posters obviously experienced in the field of computer repair:
https://appleinsider.com/artic...
So, since you are "backing up" your claims with the words of a know fraudster and notorious Apple-Hater, your argument is completely invalidated.
As the article in MacObserver stated:
"It sounds like Mr. Rossman got the batteries from China. He doesn’t outright say they aren’t counterfeits, he just implies it. But if they are counterfeits, then U.S. Customs is just upholding the law. If the batteries are genuine, he should explicitly state that."
So, here's the problem from Apple's point-of-view: When bogus parts are sold as "Genuine Apple", and then they either don't perform as well, or, worse, do wonderful stuff like swell up or start smoking, NOBODY looks deeper to find that the batteries are COUNTERFEIT. So, Apple's reputation suffers as a result of negative press. So, Apple CERTAINLY has an interest in keeping bootleg parts being sold as "Genuine Apple" OUT OF THE MARKETPLACE.
If you can't see the logic in that, you're simply simple.
It would appear, at least in this case, that it just might.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
So you are on the side of the megacorps, and against the little guy? What went wrong with your life? Or are you just a paid shill?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
So you are on the side of the megacorps, and against the little guy? What went wrong with your life? Or are you just a paid shill?
Nice Try. No, Nothing, and No.
I am, however ALWAYS on the side of TRUTH, and the TRUTH is that Louis Rossman is a Fraudster, and ESPECIALLY SO, since he was OBVIOUSLY going to sell BOOTLEG BATTERIES as "Genuine Apple" parts.
Or, would you want your cellphone or laptop "repaired" with some Chinese sweatshop knockoff parts SOLD as gen-u-wine OEM replacements?
Didn't think so.
So...you're on the side of the megacorps against the little guy. WTF is wrong with you? On one side, Apple, on the other side some random? Why are you not on our side?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
So...you're on the side of the megacorps against the little guy. WTF is wrong with you? On one side, Apple, on the other side some random? Why are you not on our side?
Get real.
I LIKE not having to worry about some App stealing my identity, emptying my bank account, etc.
THAT's the "side" I am on. Apple provides that. NO ONE else does, and the proof is all around you.
And the Sherman Act is a tiny part of the body of law in question. In fact, I think it might be the only part that even uses the *word* "monopoly" in any form.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Actually, it wasn't changed, or at least not according to my reading of the terms and conditions. It still contains a clause saying that if you want to distribute binaries to end users, you must create an account with the App Store and comply with the policies thereof.
Just because Apple hasn't sued anybody over third-party distribution doesn't mean Apple has decided to allow it. You can bet your backside that if, for example, Steam decided to distribute via Cydia Impactor instead of through the App Store, there would be lawsuits flying.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Actually, it wasn't changed, or at least not according to my reading of the terms and conditions. It still contains a clause saying that if you want to distribute binaries to end users, you must create an account with the App Store and comply with the policies thereof.
Just because Apple hasn't sued anybody over third-party distribution doesn't mean Apple has decided to allow it. You can bet your backside that if, for example, Steam decided to distribute via Cydia Impactor instead of through the App Store, there would be lawsuits flying.
So at this point the evidence is equivocal.
I haven't messed with this .ipa sideloading myself; but I would imagine they are bending the rules for Enterprise App Distribution, because I know it involves a User step of "Trusting" the Developer, like is shown in this tutorial:
https://www.goodbarber.com/blo...
It looks like the main issue is that Developer Certs. expire after 3 years; but other than that, it does appear to be "legal", as far as Apple is concerned.
But you might be right that this requires a full iOS Dev. ENTERPRISE license ($299/yr), rather than just the freebie one or the $99 one.
https://medium.com/@Intersog/d...
There's some interesting ideas near the end of this thread:
https://stackoverflow.com/ques...
But since the real rub is "signing", that's where Cydia Impactor may get around all of the above limitations:
https://www.shoutpedia.com/use...
The only disadvantage with that method is that you can sign Apps for a year only (with any level(?) Dev. Cert.) or for a week with a common AppleID. I don't know if "re-certs" are possible.
without going through Sony?
The relevant docs can be found here: [Sony Interactive Entertainment's website]
They do not have a 30% royalty like Apple does.
That's still going through Sony. According to help linked from the question mark in the top right corner of the page you linked, this appears to incur more overhead than Apple, even if the overhead is payable to third parties as opposed to Sony or Apple.
1. Unlike on Apple's platform, you need a corporation or LLC to get started: "(please be aware that we do not license sole proprietorships in the US, Japan, Asia Area)"
2. Unlike on Apple's platform, you need mail hosting on your own domain, not iCloud or any other domain open to public registration.
3. Unlike on Apple's platform, you need a static IPv4 address. The registration form does not take an IPv6 address, and ISPs in some cities reportedly decline to provision a static IPv4 address to a home office. (source: Bert64)
4. Nothing in the pages available before registration gives hints about the royalty structure of PlayStation Store: "PlayStation supports various business models. Once registered, you can read our guidelines to better understand our policies and practices."
5. Like on Apple's platform, Sony retains veto power: "we retain the right not to allow publication of any content if we so choose."
Yes, to get Sony's help, to have them believe you're actually a game company and not a crakz haxor, you need to have a company. That will cost about $250, you're right.
Compare with Apple, where you can only buy from Apple's store. With Apple, ONE company can sell apps, Apple. With Sony, ANY company can sell games.
"Any" is slightly more than "one".
With Sony, ANY company can sell games.
Are you referring to discs or to downloads? I was under the impression that 1. only PlayStation Store could sell downloads, and 2. Sony stopped manufacturing cartridges for its handheld, leaving downloads as the only way to get new games onto PlayStation Vita.
I wouldn't know about who all makes / made cards for the Vita, but I know the major game companies ditched it a while back because few people use it.
In any event, the Vita hardly has a monopoly on handheld gaming, with the Nintendo 3DS series being far more popular, and phone / tablet Gam even more so. If Sony becomes the only company still trying to sell games for their failing handheld, who cares.
So let's say, in a thought experiment, that Apple decided that all new iPhones will show a blank screen and no notifications, for 8 hours every 24, because health research says people need sleep.
Can you honestly say that shocked and pissed off iPhone customers have nothing to turn to from the competition? Ridiculous.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?