Are these cretins completely stupid?! I mean that would be like suing Nintendo over the nes for example for not allowing customers the chance to play Sega games on their platform. When customers choose to purchase a proprietary system or product they do so knowingly and should they wish to play sega games they would have purchased that platform. Another example would be suing a grocery store that doesn’t sell your product. If Apple were for example distributing simply an operating system that was platform agnostic I could see some merit in these arguments, but they don’t. It is their platform, their product and ecosystem, and if customers take issue from that they will vote with they’re wallets. But software companies have no right to campaign. Create your own ecosystem if that’s what you want. And how is it anti competitive? They’re free to distribute their shit elsewhere. Apple doesn’t control the entire market. And if anything Apple has democratised technology and software! These things really bug me. But customers and iOS developers alike knowingly enter into agreements and have full understanding of the terms before they start so they have no argument at all. And frankly I have never ever heard a real Apple user complain that they can’t sideload unapproved apps that are potentially hazardous, or that they can’t purchase from google play.... The only ones that do would be lazy litigious types after a free lunch. And considering the tens upon tens of billions payed out to devs I’d say they have a pretty good time of it with iOS.
Apple doesn't determine the price. The developers do. Yes, Apple takes a cut, but that's nothing out of the ordinary for digital distribution or even for brick/mortar retailers. These lawsuits need a lot more help than just a "you have standing to sue" ruling from the SC. It's very shaky ground legally to say Apple is inflating the price for consumers. Just look at standard retail: retail prices have huge markups versus the actual unit cost to produce. That's the reason why stores and retail brands can constantly have "sales" and still make money. The "sale" price usually still has a healthy markup vs unit cost to produce. Should that be illegal? Is that price inflation for consumers? If it's illegal for Apple to take a cut that could potentially raise the price, why should it be legal for a physical product to have a 1000% markup at retail on what it cost to produce? That's raising the price to the consumer as well.
I see this complaint is clear in referring to an alleged monopolization of the (iOS) apps market, not an alleged monopolization of the distribution market for such apps.
In the Pepper case, the plaintiffs have tried to conflate those markets. At times they have described an alleged monopolization by Apple of distribution for apps, and at times they've insisted that they have alleged that Apple has monopolized apps themselves. They have good reason for wanting to conflate those markets and, in effect, argue out of both sides of their mouths.
Demonstrating that Apple has a monopoly on apps, even iOS apps, would be very difficult. It doesn't. What it has monopoly power for is iOS app distribution. But, if the latter was what was allegedly monopolized, then the Pepper plaintiffs had an Illinois Brick problem. They aren't the (overcharged) direct purchasers of iOS distribution services. They are the direct purchasers of iOS apps. So the Pepper plaintiffs needed (and continue to need) to conflate those markets. They needed to be talking about iOS apps themselves in order to have standing under Illinois Brick, and now need to be talking about iOS app distribution services in order to have any chance of winning on the merits.
Hopefully the lower courts hold the Pepper plaintiffs to the framing of their case which they offered to the Supreme Court, in order to get by the Illinois Brick issue, that they were really talking about an alleged monopolization of iOS apps. That is to say, hopefully the lower courts interpret the Supreme Court's decision in Apple v Pepper as deciding that Pepper, et al., were only direct purchasers of iOS apps.
What the Pepper plaintiffs (and really, any plaintiffs who bring cases alleging anti-trust violations by Apple in this area) really need is for Apple to be considered a reseller of apps rather than an agent-seller of apps. If Apple is a reseller of apps, then in that context the app market and the app distribution services market are effectively the same thing. It would be much the situation as exists with, e.g., Walmart selling products produced by others. If Walmart was the only (re)seller of certain products (which, under anti-trust law, constituted a relevant market), then it might fairly be said to have monopoly power and there wouldn't be an Illinois Brick problem in bringing suit against it because Walmart shoppers would be the direct purchasers of that which was monopolized.
But I don't think it can credibly be argued that Apple is a reseller of third-party iOS apps. Various aspects of the model it uses points to it being an agent-seller. So anti-trust plaintiffs should be forced to decide what they are alleging - a monopolization of iOS apps or a monopolization of iOS app distribution services. Is Apple, by analogy, allegedly the only agent which airlines can sell their tickets through? Or is Apple, by analogy, allegedly the only airline would-be fliers can buy certain kinds of air travel from?
About time! Can’t mix walled garden with selective access, or else it turns into regulating speech and commerce in a time where things increasingly happen on the smartphone. No single company can be allowed to be gatekeeper to an entire market.
Here are just some stores that are gatekeepers of the products that are sold at there.
Bargain Hunt
Ben Franklin
Bi-Mart
Big Lots
BJ's Wholesale Club
Burlington Coat Factory
Costco
Dd's Discounts
Dollar General
Dollar Tree
Family Dollar
Five Below
Fred's
Fred Meyer
Gabe's
Gordmans
Harbor Freight Tools
HomeGoods
HomeSense
Kmart
Marshalls
Meijer
National Stores
Ocean State Job Lot
Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Renys
Roses
Ross Stores
Shopko
Stein Mart
Target
T.J. Maxx
Tuesday Morning
Walmart
Sam's Club
Those are many stores where I could buy many kinds of things, like milk. All brands and flavors of milk.
Now Apple:
AppStore: here is your one kind of milk. And it is 2% because we have determined it is best for you. And there are no other stores you can get compatible milk because we've genetically engineered you that way.
See the difference?
No difference, you are actually an idiot.
There’s not one kind of milk, but there are millions of apps on the App Store. What reason is there to confuse consumers, reduce security, and erode privacy? Apple didn’t decide our milk, but they did build the technologies, devices, platforms, marketplaces and services that the world copied. You can’t copy your way into the walled garden. Developers decide what apps to submit to the App Store and at what price to sell them. The customer can switch to a different phone option if that is important to them.
You will need to excuse Apple, they’re busy researching new things for you to complain about.
When you have to resort to a personal insult in your first sentence in a vein attempt to prove your point, you have already lost any debate. It speaks directly to your character as a person. Try to be better.
About time! Can’t mix walled garden with selective access, or else it turns into regulating speech and commerce in a time where things increasingly happen on the smartphone. No single company can be allowed to be gatekeeper to an entire market.
Here are just some stores that are gatekeepers of the products that are sold at there.
Bargain Hunt
Ben Franklin
Bi-Mart
Big Lots
BJ's Wholesale Club
Burlington Coat Factory
Costco
Dd's Discounts
Dollar General
Dollar Tree
Family Dollar
Five Below
Fred's
Fred Meyer
Gabe's
Gordmans
Harbor Freight Tools
HomeGoods
HomeSense
Kmart
Marshalls
Meijer
National Stores
Ocean State Job Lot
Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Renys
Roses
Ross Stores
Shopko
Stein Mart
Target
T.J. Maxx
Tuesday Morning
Walmart
Sam's Club
Those are many stores where I could buy many kinds of things, like milk. All brands and flavors of milk.
Now Apple:
AppStore: here is your one kind of milk. And it is 2% because we have determined it is best for you. And there are no other stores you can get compatible milk because we've genetically engineered you that way.
See the difference?
I’d be interested to hear a lawyer with some knowledge of antitrust law weigh in on movie theaters that don’t allow customers to bring in food. Will that go away? Will high end clothing retailers be accused of maintaining high prices because they don’t sell inexpensive items? The implications for this lawsuit are so broad as to be ludicrous.
Interesting take. I might argue that I'm going to see a movie, not consume food. I suppose if food is part of the movie experience, then you can say part of the Apple experience is being locked in a walled garden and that is what you signed up for - a limited selection of food at a potentially higher cost.
About time! Can’t mix walled garden with selective access, or else it turns into regulating speech and commerce in a time where things increasingly happen on the smartphone. No single company can be allowed to be gatekeeper to an entire market.
Here are just some stores that are gatekeepers of the products that are sold at there.
Bargain Hunt
Ben Franklin
Bi-Mart
Big Lots
BJ's Wholesale Club
Burlington Coat Factory
Costco
Dd's Discounts
Dollar General
Dollar Tree
Family Dollar
Five Below
Fred's
Fred Meyer
Gabe's
Gordmans
Harbor Freight Tools
HomeGoods
HomeSense
Kmart
Marshalls
Meijer
National Stores
Ocean State Job Lot
Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Renys
Roses
Ross Stores
Shopko
Stein Mart
Target
T.J. Maxx
Tuesday Morning
Walmart
Sam's Club
Those are many stores where I could buy many kinds of things, like milk. All brands and flavors of milk.
Now Apple:
AppStore: here is your one kind of milk. And it is 2% because we have determined it is best for you. And there are no other stores you can get compatible milk because we've genetically engineered you that way.
See the difference?
I’d be interested to hear a lawyer with some knowledge of antitrust law weigh in on movie theaters that don’t allow customers to bring in food. Will that go away? Will high end clothing retailers be accused of maintaining high prices because they don’t sell inexpensive items? The implications for this lawsuit are so broad as to be ludicrous.
It comes down to market definition. That is, for practical purposes, probably the most important aspect of anti-trust law.
We can discuss it at greater length if you'd like. But, market definition boils down to whether a hypothetical monopolist could profitably raise prices. A relevant market is determined by asking whether the hypothetical monopolist could raise prices without losing so many sales that doing so was unprofitable. Are there suitable substitutes for the products in question such that consumers would, in response to increased prices, buy those substitutes? And would increased prices cause other possible suppliers to enter the market, thus reducing the sales of the hypothetical monopolist?
We can think about this list of (increasingly broad) potential relevant markets:
(1) Morning Sunshine daylilies, a (made-up by me, I think) species of daylilies which daylily enthusiasts find to be especially beautiful
(2) All daylilies
(3) All flowering perennials
(4) All perennials
(5) All plants
The question would be, if the hypothetical monopolist of Morning Sunshine daylilies raised prices would enough customers buy different daylilies instead so as to make the price increase unprofitable? Or would another grower then be able to offer Morning Sunshine daylilies and take enough of the hypothetical monopolists' sales to make the price increase unprofitable?
If not, then Morning Sunshine dayliilies might, in itself, be a relevant market based on which a hypothetical monopolist might be found (based on additional showings) to have violated anti-trust law. (There are geographical considerations to market definition, but for simplicity's sake I'm leaving them aside.)
If yes, then maybe all daylilies - rather than Morning Sunshine daylilies - is a relevant market. If the hypothetical monopolist of all daylilies raised prices, would enough customers buy different flowering perennials so as to make the price increase unprofitable?
The market definition consideration proceeds in that fashion to find a market sufficiently broad so as to constitute a relevant market under anti-trust law.
iPhone users does not want unsecured App source and insecure platform. Only way to manage is current system of one store with apps checked by Apple.Period.
Pricing and other things are different topic.
It is not true monopoly as anyone can leave to Android. It would be good if one can keep paid Apps across platform if is moving.
Let me fix this for you: "I don't want unsecured App sources and a insecure platform." That's what you want. Please don't make a blanket statement for all iOS users. I have 2 iPads and I would love to have alternatives.
Even if this were to happen (and I doubt it), no one would be twisting anybody's arm to use another store. You could happily live in the AppStore's walled, and semi-safe, garden and others could leave the gates to explore - maybe with a sign on the way out warning of dangers.
I don't understand why consumers, particularly Apple consumers, rail so hard against choice. No one would be forcing "you" to choose to use alternatives.
iPhone users does not want unsecured App source and insecure platform. Only way to manage is current system of one store with apps checked by Apple.Period.
There is a clear distinction between signing/approving an app and distributing an app. The former must be done by Apple, the latter not. Look at the Mac and acknowledge that even Apple supports a different distribution model for Mac apps.
...No single company can be allowed to be gatekeeper to an entire market.
Sure it can. When that company owns, develops, and maintains everything that makes that market possible.
Apple owns the only operating system and the only devices those apps can run on and therefor can control how those apps are distributed to their users. It would be a different story if iOS were an open operating system and there were other OEMs making devices for it, but that's not the case. It is a closed platform.
The only way for an iOS developer to write and distribute their app to a potential user is for that user to buy an Apple device running Apple's iOS operating system, and then that developer downloading Apple's developer tools and Apple allowing them to join their developer's program and finally, Apple clearing that app so it can be sold and distributed on their App Store.
That's the product. That's how they designed the platform. It's neither right nor wrong. It's just the way Apple wanted it. If you don't like how Apple runs their platform, there's another much larger platform you can choose to use. And many people do.
iPhone users does not want unsecured App source and insecure platform. Only way to manage is current system of one store with apps checked by Apple.Period.
Pricing and other things are different topic.
It is not true monopoly as anyone can leave to Android. It would be good if one can keep paid Apps across platform if is moving.
Let me fix this for you: "I don't want unsecured App sources and a insecure platform." That's what you want. Please don't make a blanket statement for all iOS users. I have 2 iPads and I would love to have alternatives.
Even if this were to happen (and I doubt it), no one would be twisting anybody's arm to use another store. You could happily live in the AppStore's walled, and semi-safe, garden and others could leave the gates to explore - maybe with a sign on the way out warning of dangers.
I don't understand why consumers, particularly Apple consumers, rail so hard against choice. No one would be forcing "you" to choose to use alternatives.
If you want alternatives, download the developer tools and write your own apps. I do. Why do you think you're entitled to have something be made available to you?
When the gates are opened, security is compromised. It's just that simple. You may not care. But many of us who use iOS devices, certainly do.
Apple sells iOS as secure and private. By allowing, and not being able to control, 3rd party app stores, their ENTIRE branding is gone. Apple can no longer make those selling points. Points that set them apart from their competition. And in a day and age were privacy is being trampled all over by other companies, you really think it's in everyone's best interest to force Apple away from their ability to control and maintain users' privacy?
iPhone users does not want unsecured App source and insecure platform. Only way to manage is current system of one store with apps checked by Apple.Period.
Pricing and other things are different topic.
It is not true monopoly as anyone can leave to Android. It would be good if one can keep paid Apps across platform if is moving.
Let me fix this for you: "I don't want unsecured App sources and a insecure platform." That's what you want. Please don't make a blanket statement for all iOS users. I have 2 iPads and I would love to have alternatives.
Even if this were to happen (and I doubt it), no one would be twisting anybody's arm to use another store. You could happily live in the AppStore's walled, and semi-safe, garden and others could leave the gates to explore - maybe with a sign on the way out warning of dangers.
I don't understand why consumers, particularly Apple consumers, rail so hard against choice. No one would be forcing "you" to choose to use alternatives.
If you want alternatives, download the developer tools and write your own apps. I do. Why do you think you're entitled to have something be made available to you?
When the gates are opened, security is compromised. It's just that simple. You may not care. But many of us who use iOS devices, certainly do.
Apple sells iOS as secure and private. By allowing, and not being able to control, 3rd party app stores, their ENTIRE branding is gone. Apple can no longer make those selling points. Points that set them apart from their competition. And in a day and age were privacy is being trampled all over by other companies, you really think it's in everyone's best interest to force Apple away from their ability to control and maintain users' privacy?
Exactly, I don't care and why do you? The act of having other App Stores available does not compromise your security. You can keep your apple-colored classes on and live in the garden. Apple can tell people their ecosystem is secure (well, mostly) and pop up a big warning if another store is used.
Has the macOS brand been destroyed by "the sky is falling" warnings because people can install apps from anywhere if they so choose? Not at all. In fact, it is still regarded as one of the safest OS to use. Oh, and they even warn you if an app isn't from a verified developer. No reason they can't do that for iOS if they choose.
Choice is not entitlement. I don't think that word means what you think it means. I have a couple of iPads, but due specifically to the AppStore restrictions, my family uses Android as our choice. We have for years and years with zero issues and none of the "omg, you're gonna get so many bad things happening" FUD that is commonly evoked here.
About time! Can’t mix walled garden with selective access, or else it turns into regulating speech and commerce in a time where things increasingly happen on the smartphone. No single company can be allowed to be gatekeeper to an entire market.
They're not...its called Android. There are alternatives. Now if Apple was the gatekeeper of ALL mobile phone stores and controlled every aspect of it, then maybe your rant holds merit.
Even then his rant wouldn't hold merit. Apple invented the iPhone, they should have control over the money lost on knockoffs.
Will we force Xbox games on the Playstation store? Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo don't allow competing stores on their consoles and they take a hefty fee from every game sold both digital and physical.
iPhone users does not want unsecured App source and insecure platform. Only way to manage is current system of one store with apps checked by Apple.Period.
Pricing and other things are different topic.
It is not true monopoly as anyone can leave to Android. It would be good if one can keep paid Apps across platform if is moving.
Let me fix this for you: "I don't want unsecured App sources and a insecure platform." That's what you want. Please don't make a blanket statement for all iOS users. I have 2 iPads and I would love to have alternatives.
Even if this were to happen (and I doubt it), no one would be twisting anybody's arm to use another store. You could happily live in the AppStore's walled, and semi-safe, garden and others could leave the gates to explore - maybe with a sign on the way out warning of dangers.
I don't understand why consumers, particularly Apple consumers, rail so hard against choice. No one would be forcing "you" to choose to use alternatives.
About time! Can’t mix walled garden with selective access, or else it turns into regulating speech and commerce in a time where things increasingly happen on the smartphone. No single company can be allowed to be gatekeeper to an entire market.
Here are just some stores that are gatekeepers of the products that are sold at there.
Bargain Hunt
Ben Franklin
Bi-Mart
Big Lots
BJ's Wholesale Club
Burlington Coat Factory
Costco
Dd's Discounts
Dollar General
Dollar Tree
Family Dollar
Five Below
Fred's
Fred Meyer
Gabe's
Gordmans
Harbor Freight Tools
HomeGoods
HomeSense
Kmart
Marshalls
Meijer
National Stores
Ocean State Job Lot
Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Renys
Roses
Ross Stores
Shopko
Stein Mart
Target
T.J. Maxx
Tuesday Morning
Walmart
Sam's Club
That's all?
Here are some restaurants:
McDonalds Burger King Wendy's KFC Pizza Hut LittleCeasars WingStop Red Lobster Chili's
About time! Can’t mix walled garden with selective access, or else it turns into regulating speech and commerce in a time where things increasingly happen on the smartphone. No single company can be allowed to be gatekeeper to an entire market.
Here are just some stores that are gatekeepers of the products that are sold at there.
Bargain Hunt
Ben Franklin
Bi-Mart
Big Lots
BJ's Wholesale Club
Burlington Coat Factory
Costco
Dd's Discounts
Dollar General
Dollar Tree
Family Dollar
Five Below
Fred's
Fred Meyer
Gabe's
Gordmans
Harbor Freight Tools
HomeGoods
HomeSense
Kmart
Marshalls
Meijer
National Stores
Ocean State Job Lot
Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Renys
Roses
Ross Stores
Shopko
Stein Mart
Target
T.J. Maxx
Tuesday Morning
Walmart
Sam's Club
Those are many stores where I could buy many kinds of things, like milk. All brands and flavors of milk.
Now Apple:
AppStore: here is your one kind of milk. And it is 2% because we have determined it is best for you. And there are no other stores you can get compatible milk because we've genetically engineered you that way.
See the difference?
NOPE.
That is one store where I can buy many kinds of Apps.
iPhone users does not want unsecured App source and insecure platform. Only way to manage is current system of one store with apps checked by Apple.Period.
Pricing and other things are different topic.
It is not true monopoly as anyone can leave to Android. It would be good if one can keep paid Apps across platform if is moving.
Let me fix this for you: "I don't want unsecured App sources and a insecure platform." That's what you want. Please don't make a blanket statement for all iOS users. I have 2 iPads and I would love to have alternatives.
Even if this were to happen (and I doubt it), no one would be twisting anybody's arm to use another store. You could happily live in the AppStore's walled, and semi-safe, garden and others could leave the gates to explore - maybe with a sign on the way out warning of dangers.
I don't understand why consumers, particularly Apple consumers, rail so hard against choice. No one would be forcing "you" to choose to use alternatives.
If you want alternatives, download the developer tools and write your own apps. I do. Why do you think you're entitled to have something be made available to you?
When the gates are opened, security is compromised. It's just that simple. You may not care. But many of us who use iOS devices, certainly do.
Apple sells iOS as secure and private. By allowing, and not being able to control, 3rd party app stores, their ENTIRE branding is gone. Apple can no longer make those selling points. Points that set them apart from their competition. And in a day and age were privacy is being trampled all over by other companies, you really think it's in everyone's best interest to force Apple away from their ability to control and maintain users' privacy?
Exactly, I don't care and why do you? The act of having other App Stores available does not compromise your security. You can keep your apple-colored classes on and live in the garden. Apple can tell people their ecosystem is secure (well, mostly) and pop up a big warning if another store is used.
I told you why I care and it has nothing to do with Apple-colored glasses... Apple would need to poke a hole in a major security barrier to allow side-loading of apps from other stores. Once that "switch" is in place it's in place on all devices and could potentially be compromised. It's not as simple as you seem to think it is.
Apple doesn't determine the price. The developers do. Yes, Apple takes a cut, but that's nothing out of the ordinary for digital distribution or even for brick/mortar retailers. These lawsuits need a lot more help than just a "you have standing to sue" ruling from the SC. It's very shaky ground legally to say Apple is inflating the price for consumers. Just look at standard retail: retail prices have huge markups versus the actual unit cost to produce. That's the reason why stores and retail brands can constantly have "sales" and still make money. The "sale" price usually still has a healthy markup vs unit cost to produce. Should that be illegal? Is that price inflation for consumers? If it's illegal for Apple to take a cut that could potentially raise the price, why should it be legal for a physical product to have a 1000% markup at retail on what it cost to produce? That's raising the price to the consumer as well.
Actually Apple's involvement is a bit more than that.
I was not aware that you don't own the apps you buy for your iPhone. Now if you are aware of it that's good, but the presumption would be that the app belongs to and is controlled by the developer. Apparently it does not according to Apple's disclosure. Apple controls it. Google's Play Store is probably the same.
"Apps made available through the App Store are licensed, not sold, to you. Your license to each App is subject to your prior acceptance of either this Licensed Application End User License Agreement (“Standard EULA”), or a custom end user license agreement between you and the Application Provider (“Custom EULA”), if one is provided." https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/dev/stdeula/
Comments
In the Pepper case, the plaintiffs have tried to conflate those markets. At times they have described an alleged monopolization by Apple of distribution for apps, and at times they've insisted that they have alleged that Apple has monopolized apps themselves. They have good reason for wanting to conflate those markets and, in effect, argue out of both sides of their mouths.
Demonstrating that Apple has a monopoly on apps, even iOS apps, would be very difficult. It doesn't. What it has monopoly power for is iOS app distribution. But, if the latter was what was allegedly monopolized, then the Pepper plaintiffs had an Illinois Brick problem. They aren't the (overcharged) direct purchasers of iOS distribution services. They are the direct purchasers of iOS apps. So the Pepper plaintiffs needed (and continue to need) to conflate those markets. They needed to be talking about iOS apps themselves in order to have standing under Illinois Brick, and now need to be talking about iOS app distribution services in order to have any chance of winning on the merits.
Hopefully the lower courts hold the Pepper plaintiffs to the framing of their case which they offered to the Supreme Court, in order to get by the Illinois Brick issue, that they were really talking about an alleged monopolization of iOS apps. That is to say, hopefully the lower courts interpret the Supreme Court's decision in Apple v Pepper as deciding that Pepper, et al., were only direct purchasers of iOS apps.
What the Pepper plaintiffs (and really, any plaintiffs who bring cases alleging anti-trust violations by Apple in this area) really need is for Apple to be considered a reseller of apps rather than an agent-seller of apps. If Apple is a reseller of apps, then in that context the app market and the app distribution services market are effectively the same thing. It would be much the situation as exists with, e.g., Walmart selling products produced by others. If Walmart was the only (re)seller of certain products (which, under anti-trust law, constituted a relevant market), then it might fairly be said to have monopoly power and there wouldn't be an Illinois Brick problem in bringing suit against it because Walmart shoppers would be the direct purchasers of that which was monopolized.
But I don't think it can credibly be argued that Apple is a reseller of third-party iOS apps. Various aspects of the model it uses points to it being an agent-seller. So anti-trust plaintiffs should be forced to decide what they are alleging - a monopolization of iOS apps or a monopolization of iOS app distribution services. Is Apple, by analogy, allegedly the only agent which airlines can sell their tickets through? Or is Apple, by analogy, allegedly the only airline would-be fliers can buy certain kinds of air travel from?
We can discuss it at greater length if you'd like. But, market definition boils down to whether a hypothetical monopolist could profitably raise prices. A relevant market is determined by asking whether the hypothetical monopolist could raise prices without losing so many sales that doing so was unprofitable. Are there suitable substitutes for the products in question such that consumers would, in response to increased prices, buy those substitutes? And would increased prices cause other possible suppliers to enter the market, thus reducing the sales of the hypothetical monopolist?
We can think about this list of (increasingly broad) potential relevant markets:
(1) Morning Sunshine daylilies, a (made-up by me, I think) species of daylilies which daylily enthusiasts find to be especially beautiful
(2) All daylilies
(3) All flowering perennials
(4) All perennials
(5) All plants
The question would be, if the hypothetical monopolist of Morning Sunshine daylilies raised prices would enough customers buy different daylilies instead so as to make the price increase unprofitable? Or would another grower then be able to offer Morning Sunshine daylilies and take enough of the hypothetical monopolists' sales to make the price increase unprofitable?
If not, then Morning Sunshine dayliilies might, in itself, be a relevant market based on which a hypothetical monopolist might be found (based on additional showings) to have violated anti-trust law. (There are geographical considerations to market definition, but for simplicity's sake I'm leaving them aside.)
If yes, then maybe all daylilies - rather than Morning Sunshine daylilies - is a relevant market. If the hypothetical monopolist of all daylilies raised prices, would enough customers buy different flowering perennials so as to make the price increase unprofitable?
The market definition consideration proceeds in that fashion to find a market sufficiently broad so as to constitute a relevant market under anti-trust law.
Even if this were to happen (and I doubt it), no one would be twisting anybody's arm to use another store. You could happily live in the AppStore's walled, and semi-safe, garden and others could leave the gates to explore - maybe with a sign on the way out warning of dangers.
I don't understand why consumers, particularly Apple consumers, rail so hard against choice. No one would be forcing "you" to choose to use alternatives.
Sure it can. When that company owns, develops, and maintains everything that makes that market possible.
Apple owns the only operating system and the only devices those apps can run on and therefor can control how those apps are distributed to their users. It would be a different story if iOS were an open operating system and there were other OEMs making devices for it, but that's not the case. It is a closed platform.
The only way for an iOS developer to write and distribute their app to a potential user is for that user to buy an Apple device running Apple's iOS operating system, and then that developer downloading Apple's developer tools and Apple allowing them to join their developer's program and finally, Apple clearing that app so it can be sold and distributed on their App Store.
That's the product. That's how they designed the platform. It's neither right nor wrong. It's just the way Apple wanted it. If you don't like how Apple runs their platform, there's another much larger platform you can choose to use. And many people do.
If you want alternatives, download the developer tools and write your own apps. I do. Why do you think you're entitled to have something be made available to you?
When the gates are opened, security is compromised. It's just that simple. You may not care. But many of us who use iOS devices, certainly do.
Apple sells iOS as secure and private. By allowing, and not being able to control, 3rd party app stores, their ENTIRE branding is gone. Apple can no longer make those selling points. Points that set them apart from their competition. And in a day and age were privacy is being trampled all over by other companies, you really think it's in everyone's best interest to force Apple away from their ability to control and maintain users' privacy?
Has the macOS brand been destroyed by "the sky is falling" warnings because people can install apps from anywhere if they so choose? Not at all. In fact, it is still regarded as one of the safest OS to use. Oh, and they even warn you if an app isn't from a verified developer. No reason they can't do that for iOS if they choose.
Choice is not entitlement. I don't think that word means what you think it means. I have a couple of iPads, but due specifically to the AppStore restrictions, my family uses Android as our choice. We have for years and years with zero issues and none of the "omg, you're gonna get so many bad things happening" FUD that is commonly evoked here.
Even then his rant wouldn't hold merit. Apple invented the iPhone, they should have control over the money lost on knockoffs.
That's all?
Here are some restaurants:
McDonalds
Burger King
Wendy's
KFC
Pizza Hut
LittleCeasars
WingStop
Red Lobster
Chili's
etc. etc. lol
NOPE.
That is one store where I can buy many kinds of Apps.
I told you why I care and it has nothing to do with Apple-colored glasses... Apple would need to poke a hole in a major security barrier to allow side-loading of apps from other stores. Once that "switch" is in place it's in place on all devices and could potentially be compromised. It's not as simple as you seem to think it is.
I was not aware that you don't own the apps you buy for your iPhone. Now if you are aware of it that's good, but the presumption would be that the app belongs to and is controlled by the developer. Apparently it does not according to Apple's disclosure. Apple controls it. Google's Play Store is probably the same.
"Apps made available through the App Store are licensed, not sold, to you. Your license to each App is subject to your prior acceptance of either this Licensed Application End User License Agreement (“Standard EULA”), or a custom end user license agreement between you and the Application Provider (“Custom EULA”), if one is provided."
https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/dev/stdeula/