Arguing about what is/isn't a monopoly is a fools errand.
Monopolies are not illegal it is the abuse of them that is. Apple can have it's Walled Garden just like Facebook or Amazon. It's only an abuse of their monopoly if they are found to use their monopoly status to coerce unfairly. For example "If you deliver an Android version of your app we will not promote your app on our store"
Match.com doesn't let free subscribers message other free subscribers so they know all about the paywall and should be following the rules outside of their own sandbox.
g for a percentage of said individual/company's income is a small price to pay for said privilege.
it's also nothing new. Bookstores keep a share of the books etc they sell. The distributors the same for the publishers to the bookstores. Record Labels to record stores to customer and so on.
because Apple don't actually have a monopoly perhaps?
Oh Apple has a clear monopoly in the mobile internet device market. Hands down, no doubt about it. Because a monopoly is merely a vast position of strength in a market.
HOWEVER. vertical integration is NOT illegal in or out of a monopoly. The only things that are illegal are how you got there (being the things that folks want the most is not illegal just good for you and your business). And what you do afterwards. Specifically how you use or attempt to use your power to encourage growth in other unrelated markets.
Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to use their monopoly in the computer operating system market to push themselves higher in the web browser market by forcing OEMs to install Internet Explorer and only Internet Explorer on computers. And also by cutting off access to details of windows needed to make software work properly and threatening to sue anyone that tried to reverse engineer (which is actually allowed under fair use tenets of copyright law). The courts didn't agree that the two were related markets.
For Apple to be using their monopoly illegally they would have to pull a move like get rid of iTunes for Windows, iCloud etc and force you to have a Mac computer if you want to use an iPad etc. By a similar vein, I suppose someone could take them to task for not creating a Windows based SDK for developers but given the computer languages involved it might not get the outcome they want in court. But that argument is more likely to get heard over "Apple controls what apps you can 'legally' use on your device, that's a monopoly. They must be sued" (especially since you can run outside apps if you want to take the steps and void your warranty in the process)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rugby_kid
Uh....it's not a monopoly if it's your service within your service. Apple can do what they want. They're not regulated in this case. It would only be a monopoly if nobody could make apps and only apple could. Different case.
Actually no, that's not a monopoly at all. In fact it's really just a stronger degree of what they are doing, completely legally, now.
that said, at this point it would be a dick move and Apple's not stupid. But legally they could do it if they wish
I'm fairly certain that you're unsure what a monopoly entails.
Maybe...so I looked it up on Dictionary.com.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
By definition #3, Apple has a monopoly --exclusive control of something, namely distribution of iOS apps.
Let's go back for a minute so I can make myself clear on where my comments came from. Match.com violated the App Store terms and got the app pulled. OK, no argument there.
Apple ][ said "If somebody wants their app on the appstore, then they either follow the rules or they can get lost. The choice is theirs. " I think this is the point you were expanding on, when you made your comment about going to a physical distribution chain or one's own online distribution means if you don't like Apple's terms.
That's where my comment came in, in that doing so is not an option. Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution based on the definition of "monopoly." Maybe the monopoly discussion is a bit offtopic, but that's the part of the discussion I was addressing.
Apple does have a monopoly--it is in software distribution for the iPhone. If I'm a developer and I want to write software for the iPhone, I don't have the option of any other distribution channel outside the App Store if I disagree with Apple's terms. Perhaps one could claim that jailbreaking and the Cydia app store show that there is not a monopoly on iPhone software distribution, but the fact that you have to jailbreak your iPhone first weakens that argument.
Think of it this way--what if Apple locked down OS X where the ONLY way to get software for your Mac was via the Mac App Store? Would that not constitute a monopoly on Mac software distribution?
Having a monopoly itself may not be illegal, but abusing it is--look at Microsoft in the 1990s abusing its monopoly on the desktop OS market. Could this be an abuse of Apple's monopoly on the iOS software distribution monopoly? Perhaps it is.
Oh, God. Go to law school, study corporate law, go to Black's Law Dictionary, study case law and then come back and correctly use the term monopoly. Until then you're just blowing smoke and you really don't know what you're talking about.
In fact, anybody here short of being a lawyer doesn't really know what "monopoly" means and most arguments are just plain wrong or whining.
I hate these "Apple is a monopoly" threads for that reason.
Arguing about what is/isn't a monopoly is a fools errand.
Monopolies are not illegal it is the abuse of them that is. Apple can have it's Walled Garden just like Facebook or Amazon. It's only an abuse of their monopoly if they are found to use their monopoly status to coerce unfairly. For example "If you deliver an Android version of your app we will not promote your app on our store"
Match.com doesn't let free subscribers message other free subscribers so they know all about the paywall and should be following the rules outside of their own sandbox.
Some of Match.com's own policies throw sand in the face of "fairness" so they have zero justification to complain. To wit: When one subscribes to Match.com, they've purchased the ability to e-mail other members, paying or otherwise (i.e., free). But here's the kicker: The free member can't read that message. In essence, the paying member doesn't receive what they've paid for--that is, the ability to correspond with the all of the "thousands" of members, including those who maintain free profiles. Worse, Match.com uses "social engineering" to goad non-paying recipients into signing up to see who sent them a message by advising recipients of messages that they have mail but don't show you the name (or a picture, if posted) of the person who sent it, unless you pay for the access.
With all of this said, it's good to hear Apple lower the boom on Match.com. Match.com and its board of directors should be sued.
Some of Match.com's own policies throw sand in the face of "fairness" so they have zero justification to complain. To wit: When one subscribes to Match.com, they've purchased the ability to e-mail other members, paying or otherwise (i.e., free). But here's the kicker: The free member can't read that message. In essence, the paying member doesn't receive what they've paid for--that is, the ability to correspond with the all of the "thousands" of members, including those who maintain free profiles. Worse, Match.com uses "social engineering" to goad non-paying recipients into signing up to see who sent them a message by advising recipients of messages that they have mail but don't show you the name (or a picture, if posted) of the person who sent it, unless you pay for the access.
With all of this said, it's good to hear Apple lower the boom on Match.com. Match.com and its board of directors should be sued.
+1
Also try to find an easy and clear way to delete your account.
Apple does have a monopoly--it is in software distribution for the iPhone. If I'm a developer and I want to write software for the iPhone, I don't have the option of any other distribution channel outside the App Store if I disagree with Apple's terms. Perhaps one could claim that jailbreaking and the Cydia app store show that there is not a monopoly on iPhone software distribution, but the fact that you have to jailbreak your iPhone first weakens that argument.
Think of it this way--what if Apple locked down OS X where the ONLY way to get software for your Mac was via the Mac App Store? Would that not constitute a monopoly on Mac software distribution?
Having a monopoly itself may not be illegal, but abusing it is--look at Microsoft in the 1990s abusing its monopoly on the desktop OS market. Could this be an abuse of Apple's monopoly on the iOS software distribution monopoly? Perhaps it is.
Some of Match.com's own policies throw sand in the face of "fairness" so they have zero justification to complain. To wit: When one subscribes to Match.com, they've purchased the ability to e-mail other members, paying or otherwise (i.e., free). But here's the kicker: The free member can't read that message. In essence, the paying member doesn't receive what they've paid for--that is, the ability to correspond with the all of the "thousands" of members, including those who maintain free profiles. Worse, Match.com uses "social engineering" to goad non-paying recipients into signing up to see who sent them a message by advising recipients of messages that they have mail but don't show you the name (or a picture, if posted) of the person who sent it, unless you pay for the access.
With all of this said, it's good to hear Apple lower the boom on Match.com. Match.com and its board of directors should be sued.
I tried out the service and when I got signed up for spam through their site, requested a refund. No matter how many hours I spent arguing with supervisors, the company simply reiterated its no refund policy; one that is nowhere in the terms and conditions (as far as I could find). I was, however, able to get my charges refunded by disputing them at my bank.
It's amazing that people considered Microsoft a Monopoly but now that is called Apple things are different
Err, because they are different? Microsoft is a convicted monopolyst because they used profits from one product to artificially lower prices in unrelated markets. They also leveraged their position in the market to freeze out competitors by enacting anti-competitive agreements with OEMs.
Apple just builds better product and the market decides.
I know it's hard for those who have an irrational dislike of Apple to fathom that people could actually want Apple products because they think they will work the best for them - but sometimes it really is that simple.
Quote:
why should anyone be obligated to pay a fee to Apple for a service not wanted or done by others!!!
what an odd question. Match obviously tout there was value being in the app store vs just being available on the web. That value isn't good enough that they should have to follow the rules? They shouldn't have to "just because"?
Apple does have a monopoly--it is in software distribution for the iPhone. If I'm a developer and I want to write software for the iPhone, I don't have the option of any other distribution channel outside the App Store if I disagree with Apple's terms.
Boo Hoo. As a consumer, it's Apple strict control that makes the iPhone so appealing.
Don't like it? Go pick another platform that offers you more freedom. But stop acting like you are picked on for participating in a vibrant ecosystem that is vibrant primarily because of that which you are complaining.
Just because you don't like the exact way something is structured doesn't mean it's a monopoly
I can't go to my local software store of choice, buy an iOS app and install it. I have to go through the App Store. And that is where the monopoly lies.
It's also where the value of the platform is! Your asking for the biggest reason for iOS success to be changed just because you don't like it
Thankfully you aren't in charge. If you want a model where there is more choice, those platforms are out there. Apple is doing nothing active or passively to inhibit them - other than providing a more compelling experience.
Oh Apple has a clear monopoly in the mobile internet device market. Hands down, no doubt about it. Because a monopoly is merely a vast position of strength in a market.
Please don't try to define subjects you are clearly not versed in. They have a clear leadership position for mindshare and profit, but they are far from having a monopoly. Heck, they don't even have market share domination, which every other article in the tech press tries to emphasize as "winning" - so which is it?
By definition #3, Apple has a monopoly --exclusive control of something, namely distribution of iOS apps.
..for devices that have a minority of marketshare.
Yup, a clear monopoly
Quote:
That's where my comment came in, in that doing so is not an option.
So mobile Safari is just invisible when it comes to the "evil app store" arguments? Their web site suddenly and magically breaks too?
Quote:
Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution based on the definition of "monopoly."
No, they have total control over their platform. Use of the word "monopoly" is a weak attempt by people such as yourself to protest that a successful methodology other than one which you agree with is good.
Quote:
Maybe the monopoly discussion is a bit offtopic, but that's the part of the discussion I was addressing.
The entire concept is off topic and irrelevant.
Again, Apple's control over the platform is what makes it so valuable. If you don't like it, go pick one of the other platforms that follows a model you like. But stop trying to limit my choice or pretend you know what's best for me just because you don't like it
Comments
Monopolies are not illegal it is the abuse of them that is. Apple can have it's Walled Garden just like Facebook or Amazon. It's only an abuse of their monopoly if they are found to use their monopoly status to coerce unfairly. For example "If you deliver an Android version of your app we will not promote your app on our store"
Match.com doesn't let free subscribers message other free subscribers so they know all about the paywall and should be following the rules outside of their own sandbox.
g for a percentage of said individual/company's income is a small price to pay for said privilege.
it's also nothing new. Bookstores keep a share of the books etc they sell. The distributors the same for the publishers to the bookstores. Record Labels to record stores to customer and so on.
because Apple don't actually have a monopoly perhaps?
Oh Apple has a clear monopoly in the mobile internet device market. Hands down, no doubt about it. Because a monopoly is merely a vast position of strength in a market.
HOWEVER. vertical integration is NOT illegal in or out of a monopoly. The only things that are illegal are how you got there (being the things that folks want the most is not illegal just good for you and your business). And what you do afterwards. Specifically how you use or attempt to use your power to encourage growth in other unrelated markets.
Microsoft got in trouble because they tried to use their monopoly in the computer operating system market to push themselves higher in the web browser market by forcing OEMs to install Internet Explorer and only Internet Explorer on computers. And also by cutting off access to details of windows needed to make software work properly and threatening to sue anyone that tried to reverse engineer (which is actually allowed under fair use tenets of copyright law). The courts didn't agree that the two were related markets.
For Apple to be using their monopoly illegally they would have to pull a move like get rid of iTunes for Windows, iCloud etc and force you to have a Mac computer if you want to use an iPad etc. By a similar vein, I suppose someone could take them to task for not creating a Windows based SDK for developers but given the computer languages involved it might not get the outcome they want in court. But that argument is more likely to get heard over "Apple controls what apps you can 'legally' use on your device, that's a monopoly. They must be sued" (especially since you can run outside apps if you want to take the steps and void your warranty in the process)
Uh....it's not a monopoly if it's your service within your service. Apple can do what they want. They're not regulated in this case. It would only be a monopoly if nobody could make apps and only apple could. Different case.
Actually no, that's not a monopoly at all. In fact it's really just a stronger degree of what they are doing, completely legally, now.
that said, at this point it would be a dick move and Apple's not stupid. But legally they could do it if they wish
I'm fairly certain that you're unsure what a monopoly entails.
Maybe...so I looked it up on Dictionary.com.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
By definition #3, Apple has a monopoly --exclusive control of something, namely distribution of iOS apps.
Let's go back for a minute so I can make myself clear on where my comments came from. Match.com violated the App Store terms and got the app pulled. OK, no argument there.
Apple ][ said "If somebody wants their app on the appstore, then they either follow the rules or they can get lost. The choice is theirs. " I think this is the point you were expanding on, when you made your comment about going to a physical distribution chain or one's own online distribution means if you don't like Apple's terms.
That's where my comment came in, in that doing so is not an option. Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution based on the definition of "monopoly." Maybe the monopoly discussion is a bit offtopic, but that's the part of the discussion I was addressing.
Apple does have a monopoly--it is in software distribution for the iPhone. If I'm a developer and I want to write software for the iPhone, I don't have the option of any other distribution channel outside the App Store if I disagree with Apple's terms. Perhaps one could claim that jailbreaking and the Cydia app store show that there is not a monopoly on iPhone software distribution, but the fact that you have to jailbreak your iPhone first weakens that argument.
Think of it this way--what if Apple locked down OS X where the ONLY way to get software for your Mac was via the Mac App Store? Would that not constitute a monopoly on Mac software distribution?
Having a monopoly itself may not be illegal, but abusing it is--look at Microsoft in the 1990s abusing its monopoly on the desktop OS market. Could this be an abuse of Apple's monopoly on the iOS software distribution monopoly? Perhaps it is.
Oh, God. Go to law school, study corporate law, go to Black's Law Dictionary, study case law and then come back and correctly use the term monopoly. Until then you're just blowing smoke and you really don't know what you're talking about.
In fact, anybody here short of being a lawyer doesn't really know what "monopoly" means and most arguments are just plain wrong or whining.
I hate these "Apple is a monopoly" threads for that reason.
In fact, anybody here short of being a lawyer doesn't really know what "monopoly" means.
So when one gets a law degree, they are automatically allowed (and only then) to know what a monopoly is?
and most arguments are just plain wrong or whining
That's very likely but one does not need to be a lawyer to know what something is.
Arguing about what is/isn't a monopoly is a fools errand.
Monopolies are not illegal it is the abuse of them that is. Apple can have it's Walled Garden just like Facebook or Amazon. It's only an abuse of their monopoly if they are found to use their monopoly status to coerce unfairly. For example "If you deliver an Android version of your app we will not promote your app on our store"
Match.com doesn't let free subscribers message other free subscribers so they know all about the paywall and should be following the rules outside of their own sandbox.
Nevermind.
With all of this said, it's good to hear Apple lower the boom on Match.com. Match.com and its board of directors should be sued.
Some of Match.com's own policies throw sand in the face of "fairness" so they have zero justification to complain. To wit: When one subscribes to Match.com, they've purchased the ability to e-mail other members, paying or otherwise (i.e., free). But here's the kicker: The free member can't read that message. In essence, the paying member doesn't receive what they've paid for--that is, the ability to correspond with the all of the "thousands" of members, including those who maintain free profiles. Worse, Match.com uses "social engineering" to goad non-paying recipients into signing up to see who sent them a message by advising recipients of messages that they have mail but don't show you the name (or a picture, if posted) of the person who sent it, unless you pay for the access.
With all of this said, it's good to hear Apple lower the boom on Match.com. Match.com and its board of directors should be sued.
+1
Also try to find an easy and clear way to delete your account.
Apple does have a monopoly--it is in software distribution for the iPhone. If I'm a developer and I want to write software for the iPhone, I don't have the option of any other distribution channel outside the App Store if I disagree with Apple's terms. Perhaps one could claim that jailbreaking and the Cydia app store show that there is not a monopoly on iPhone software distribution, but the fact that you have to jailbreak your iPhone first weakens that argument.
Think of it this way--what if Apple locked down OS X where the ONLY way to get software for your Mac was via the Mac App Store? Would that not constitute a monopoly on Mac software distribution?
Having a monopoly itself may not be illegal, but abusing it is--look at Microsoft in the 1990s abusing its monopoly on the desktop OS market. Could this be an abuse of Apple's monopoly on the iOS software distribution monopoly? Perhaps it is.
http://images.cheezburger.com/comple...6736623535.jpg
Some of Match.com's own policies throw sand in the face of "fairness" so they have zero justification to complain. To wit: When one subscribes to Match.com, they've purchased the ability to e-mail other members, paying or otherwise (i.e., free). But here's the kicker: The free member can't read that message. In essence, the paying member doesn't receive what they've paid for--that is, the ability to correspond with the all of the "thousands" of members, including those who maintain free profiles. Worse, Match.com uses "social engineering" to goad non-paying recipients into signing up to see who sent them a message by advising recipients of messages that they have mail but don't show you the name (or a picture, if posted) of the person who sent it, unless you pay for the access.
With all of this said, it's good to hear Apple lower the boom on Match.com. Match.com and its board of directors should be sued.
I tried out the service and when I got signed up for spam through their site, requested a refund. No matter how many hours I spent arguing with supervisors, the company simply reiterated its no refund policy; one that is nowhere in the terms and conditions (as far as I could find). I was, however, able to get my charges refunded by disputing them at my bank.
It's amazing that people considered Microsoft a Monopoly but now that is called Apple things are different
Err, because they are different? Microsoft is a convicted monopolyst because they used profits from one product to artificially lower prices in unrelated markets. They also leveraged their position in the market to freeze out competitors by enacting anti-competitive agreements with OEMs.
Apple just builds better product and the market decides.
I know it's hard for those who have an irrational dislike of Apple to fathom that people could actually want Apple products because they think they will work the best for them - but sometimes it really is that simple.
why should anyone be obligated to pay a fee to Apple for a service not wanted or done by others!!!
what an odd question. Match obviously tout there was value being in the app store vs just being available on the web. That value isn't good enough that they should have to follow the rules? They shouldn't have to "just because"?
Seriously?
Apple does have a monopoly--it is in software distribution for the iPhone. If I'm a developer and I want to write software for the iPhone, I don't have the option of any other distribution channel outside the App Store if I disagree with Apple's terms.
Boo Hoo. As a consumer, it's Apple strict control that makes the iPhone so appealing.
Don't like it? Go pick another platform that offers you more freedom. But stop acting like you are picked on for participating in a vibrant ecosystem that is vibrant primarily because of that which you are complaining.
Just because you don't like the exact way something is structured doesn't mean it's a monopoly
I can't go to my local software store of choice, buy an iOS app and install it. I have to go through the App Store. And that is where the monopoly lies.
It's also where the value of the platform is! Your asking for the biggest reason for iOS success to be changed just because you don't like it
Thankfully you aren't in charge. If you want a model where there is more choice, those platforms are out there. Apple is doing nothing active or passively to inhibit them - other than providing a more compelling experience.
Oh Apple has a clear monopoly in the mobile internet device market. Hands down, no doubt about it. Because a monopoly is merely a vast position of strength in a market.
Please don't try to define subjects you are clearly not versed in. They have a clear leadership position for mindshare and profit, but they are far from having a monopoly. Heck, they don't even have market share domination, which every other article in the tech press tries to emphasize as "winning" - so which is it?
Are they a monopolist or looser?
By definition #3, Apple has a monopoly --exclusive control of something, namely distribution of iOS apps.
..for devices that have a minority of marketshare.
Yup, a clear monopoly
That's where my comment came in, in that doing so is not an option.
So mobile Safari is just invisible when it comes to the "evil app store" arguments? Their web site suddenly and magically breaks too?
Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution based on the definition of "monopoly."
No, they have total control over their platform. Use of the word "monopoly" is a weak attempt by people such as yourself to protest that a successful methodology other than one which you agree with is good.
Maybe the monopoly discussion is a bit offtopic, but that's the part of the discussion I was addressing.
The entire concept is off topic and irrelevant.
Again, Apple's control over the platform is what makes it so valuable. If you don't like it, go pick one of the other platforms that follows a model you like. But stop trying to limit my choice or pretend you know what's best for me just because you don't like it