House Judiciary says Apple enjoys monopoly power with App Store

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 87
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,653member
    Apple Sidecar allows you to mirror a macOS app onto an iOS device. No doubt this will also work on Apple Silicon. If only Apple would allow gesture input to Sidecar, then we'd almost have a way to "stream" apps that aren't in the iOS App Store onto an iOS device.
  • Reply 62 of 87
    Counter example: The Oculus Quest. It has a company app store that is carefully regulated by FaceBook. It also has a way to side load apps so there is a competing app store that allows apps that FaceBook would not. There is an app could Virtual Desktop that on the FaceBook app store simply allows you to view your Windows desktop in VR. On the third party app store, it lets you download a version that can view any Windows VR game on the Quest in VR. It essentially turns the Quest into a wireless Windows VR headset. Try going around the Apple app store like that an iPhone.
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 63 of 87
    technotechno Posts: 732member
    lam92103 said:
    Excellent news! Any other industry and the execs would have already been in jail. Imagine a car company telling you that you have to buy all accessories from their store, and ones bought from anywhere else will just not work. And the makers have to get their products approved before they can be sold, by a somewhat arbitrary set of rules, and they have to pay 30% to the car manufacturer commission.
    I guess all of the 3rd party iPhone and iPad cases are not accessories. Are you kidding? There are thousands of accessories from other makers. The correct analogy is imagine if the government said to Tesla, you have to allow other companies, like Microsoft or Huawei to install their software on your car and open it up to viruses and malware.
    cornchipkillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 87
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,300member
    techno said:
    lam92103 said:
    Excellent news! Any other industry and the execs would have already been in jail. Imagine a car company telling you that you have to buy all accessories from their store, and ones bought from anywhere else will just not work. And the makers have to get their products approved before they can be sold, by a somewhat arbitrary set of rules, and they have to pay 30% to the car manufacturer commission.
    I guess all of the 3rd party iPhone and iPad cases are not accessories. Are you kidding? There are thousands of accessories from other makers. 

    If choice and compatibility in 3rd party accessories is a major desire I can't think of a better choice than Apple. Far less variation makes it easy for others to design add-ons compared to hundreds of different Android products with only a few of them having enough market (example Samsung phones) to attract investment in accessories.
    killroy
  • Reply 65 of 87
    Anilu_777 said:
    Google, Microsoft and all the others ALSO charge 30% fees. How is it highway robbery for Apple and not the rest?!
    It’s not. 

    Their is someone or a group of people with authority that are set on injuring Apple in this. 

    As we’ve seen with the whole FBI/CIA/Russia shenanigans,, such is unfortunately no longer relegated to the conspiracy theory bin. 

    Apple has done everything fairly. 

    They don’t have a monopoly on smartphones, computers, music, movies, etc. 

    Apple is a monpoloy by NO definition. 

    They operate THEIR OWN STORE! so they have rules. That’s a great thing. When I go to Nordstrom, I don’t expect to find Toas quality. When I go to Apple, I don’t expect to find rampant malware. 

    It’s perfectly right that they do what they do. 

    If someone else wants to flout the rules, they can go away. That’s fair too. 

    Google has its own store, but it sucks. 

    Apple is the only one truly playing fair. 

    If any store has monopoly power, it is amazon, which literally has the power to sell your products at a loss as part of your contract. They can do whatever they want with YOUR stuff to build their own brand. 

    And then they can kick you out with not much explanation. 

    If the judiciary is trying to say that you can only offer products and services that allow customers to be subject to the rampant software malpractice and flat out spying done through various actors, then we have a judiciary problem. Not an App Store one. 
    killroymattinoz
  • Reply 66 of 87
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,634member
    Counter example: The Oculus Quest. It has a company app store that is carefully regulated by FaceBook. It also has a way to side load apps so there is a competing app store that allows apps that FaceBook would not. There is an app could Virtual Desktop that on the FaceBook app store simply allows you to view your Windows desktop in VR. On the third party app store, it lets you download a version that can view any Windows VR game on the Quest in VR. It essentially turns the Quest into a wireless Windows VR headset. Try going around the Apple app store like that an iPhone.

    So? Try loading porn from YouTube or try buying recycled space shuttle parts at Wal Mart.
    qwerty52
  • Reply 67 of 87
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,634member
    So there’s this retired filmmaker, David Hoffman, on YouTube, who posts videos from his lifetime archive.  Some really interesting stuff; interview with a Vietnam vet, a civil rights activist, etc.  Heres a simple video of people in a computer store in 1995.  I’d like to submit this to Congress with the caption:

    “iPhone, we rest our case.”

    https://youtu.be/QHgBSpKV51g

    It's crazy how the iPhone can do everything in that store now, in ONE handheld device.

    What an invention!
    killroyqwerty52watto_cobra
  • Reply 68 of 87
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,340member
    benji888 said:
    This is just the kind of b.s. to lead to get Apple to open a back door. We like apple’s way of sandboxing, it is better for the consumer’s security and privacy....we know what we’re getting.

    I just don’t get how Apple can be considered monopolistic when they DO NOT have a monopoly with their products.

    I agree with the above, this is a distraction from things they need to be doing, and it does have to do with lobbying and money.

    I love Apple, in my household alone we have around £7000 worth of Apple products and have heavily bought into the ecosystem. My initial knee jerk reaction to these articles months ago was to say that Apple is not a monopoly and that I prefer Apple's sandboxed approach.

    I still prefer Apple's privacy first sandboxed approach, but I have also come to accept that Google and Apple are a duopoly when it comes to smartphones and tablets. People point to companies like Sony and their Playstation and say "See, they do it too, so it can't be wrong!", but would we let a thief get away with breaking into someones house just because some others are doing it to? (note I'm not referring to Apple as thieves!)

    Apple controls iOS and the App Store. Their own apps do not have the same restrictions and are not subject to the 30% fee, as such competition cannot be fair in that arena. iOS is not a monopoly in terms of smart phone sales, but Apple has a clear monopoly with regards to the App Store. A monopoly by definition is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service", if you want in to the iOS market you have no choice but to go through the exclusive control and rules of Apple.

    Personally I think Apple is making a HUGE mistake with their fee for developers, these lawsuits are not going to dissapear just because they dig their heels in and they are at risk of having their walled garden breached by their greed and that would be a bad result for all who care about privacy. They make huge margins on the iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch and the 30% fee is simply unjustified corporate greed, 5% would make much more sense.
  • Reply 69 of 87
    killroykillroy Posts: 165member
    Anilu_777 said:
    Google, Microsoft and all the others ALSO charge 30% fees. How is it highway robbery for Apple and not the rest?!

    They are drinking political Cool Aide.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 87
    killroykillroy Posts: 165member
    camber said:
    How do so many stupid people manages to get themselves elected to government office?

    People stay home and don't vote.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 71 of 87
    killroykillroy Posts: 165member
    lam92103 said:
    Excellent news! Any other industry and the execs would have already been in jail. Imagine a car company telling you that you have to buy all accessories from their store, and ones bought from anywhere else will just not work. And the makers have to get their products approved before they can be sold, by a somewhat arbitrary set of rules, and they have to pay 30% to the car manufacturer commission.

    One word Audi. Just try to replace the audio amp with a new one.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 72 of 87
    Even by Congress's already low standards, this wins the Utter Stupidity Award.

    What a clueless bunch. This will be thrown out on its a** by any reasonable judge in this country.
    Strange comment.  Remember, there is a fundamental difference between someone alleging illegal anti-trust behavior and bringing that to court (on one hand) and Congress considering rewriting the laws (on the other).

    As you can read on the Justice department website, there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly or having monopoly power.  What's illegal is obtaining that monopoly through illegal means or using that power illegally.  That's where judges (reasonable or otherwise) come in to apply the laws to determine what illegal.

    What's happening in Congress is fundamentally different.  They are literally considering rewriting the laws and redefining what's legal and illegal.  If this committee report ever turns into legislation (which is probably quite unlikely), it wouldn't be a judges job to "throw it out."  It is already established that Congress has great leeway in how they regulate interstate commerce (it's right there in the Constitution, unlike most other hot topics).  If Congress passes a law saying that companies over a certain size and meeting certain criteria must behave certain ways, that'll be the new law that judges interpret and apply.  Having said that, good luck writing such legislation that comes close to achieving the objectives the committee wants and good luck getting such legislation through Congress.  
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 73 of 87
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,653member
    randominternetperson said:
    As you can read on the Justice department website, there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly or having monopoly power.  What's illegal is obtaining that monopoly through illegal means or using that power illegally.  That's where judges (reasonable or otherwise) come in to apply the laws to determine what illegal. 
    Furthermore, the US Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY said in 1922 that professional baseball was exempt from anti-trust laws because NO PHYSICAL PRODUCT crossed state lines. I would like to point out that "App Stores" also have NO PHYSICAL PRODUCT. Supreme Court rulings stand until the Supreme Court reverses itself.
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 74 of 87
    killroy said:
    camber said:
    How do so many stupid people manages to get themselves elected to government office?

    People stay home and don't vote.
    Seriously. This is it. 

    There is a huge voter negligence problem. You have those with agendas that are sure to vote. Then you have good people who think they don’t have anything to prove who don’t vote. The flaw in that logic is that the steady ordered structure they enjoy as they think that is being ground to pieces by the agenda folks. 

    If you treasure anything in your country, by all means, vote. Please. 

    As Burke once said “evil triumphs when good men do nothing. 
    killroy
  • Reply 75 of 87
    Even by Congress's already low standards, this wins the Utter Stupidity Award.

    What a clueless bunch. This will be thrown out on its a** by any reasonable judge in this country.
    Strange comment.  Remember, there is a fundamental difference between someone alleging illegal anti-trust behavior and bringing that to court (on one hand) and Congress considering rewriting the laws (on the other).

    As you can read on the Justice department website, there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly or having monopoly power.  What's illegal is obtaining that monopoly through illegal means or using that power illegally.  That's where judges (reasonable or otherwise) come in to apply the laws to determine what illegal.

    What's happening in Congress is fundamentally different.  They are literally considering rewriting the laws and redefining what's legal and illegal.  If this committee report ever turns into legislation (which is probably quite unlikely), it wouldn't be a judges job to "throw it out."  It is already established that Congress has great leeway in how they regulate interstate commerce (it's right there in the Constitution, unlike most other hot topics).  If Congress passes a law saying that companies over a certain size and meeting certain criteria must behave certain ways, that'll be the new law that judges interpret and apply.  Having said that, good luck writing such legislation that comes close to achieving the objectives the committee wants and good luck getting such legislation through Congress.  
    What is the "interstate commerce" issue here? Are you even aware of what it means?!

    "Strange comment," indeed.
  • Reply 76 of 87
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member
    gc_uk said:
    Anilu_777 said:
    Google, Microsoft and all the others ALSO charge 30% fees. How is it highway robbery for Apple and not the rest?!
    Those other companies don't force a developer to only use their App Stores.  If someone started a store that didn't charge those fees developers could choose to list their software on that store instead.  Your argument points more to a cartel than anything else.
    According to Epic, Google is forcing users to use only the Google Play store by "making it too difficult" to get software from other stores. So have you been ranting against Epic, to be consistent? And that's not even the clearest case of other companies forcing developers to use a single store.
    I thought the discussion was about Apple. Any other goalposts you want to move?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 77 of 87
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member
    Beats said:
    gc_uk said:
    ericesque said:
    Forcing Apple to allow competing stores on iOS is not as terrible as many are making it out to be. 
    I prefer the peace of mind I get from downloading apps from the App Store. If other stores are made available I will simply not download apps from them. If a developer wants to reach me as a user they will need to submit their app to the App Store. 
    Exactly, and if other stores existed then other people would have the choice to download from those stores, and you can choose to download from the Apple App Store.

    What a stupid idea.
    You think freedom of choice is stupid?  No wonder you're a cheerleader for a monopoly.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 78 of 87
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member

    qwerty52 said:
    gc_uk said:

    qwerty52 said:

    2. You can buy accessories for your Apple devices everywhere, not only in the AppStore 


    Please give one example of software you can buy for an Apple mobile device outside the Apple App Store.

    I don’t consider “software” as accessories, and I will never buy software for my mobile devices outside the Apple AppStore, even if I can.
    So your comment wasn't relevant to a discussion on whether the App Store is a monopoly.  But I guess you get to decide what choices other people can make regardless.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 79 of 87
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member

    aderutter said:
    gc_uk said
    Please give one example of software you can buy for an Apple mobile device outside the Apple App Store.
    I guess you’ve never heard of Progressive Web Apps. I was told recently that even Microsoft Office Suite is available as PWA.

    Companies generally don’t want to develop software for delivery outside the app store as they would then have to market and distribute without Apple.

    The new streaming gaming service by Amazon that won’t use the app store can’t come soon enough to shut the clueless up.
    Can PWAs access all the APIs an on-device App can?
  • Reply 80 of 87
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member

    nicholfd said:

    gc_uk said:
    Anilu_777 said:
    Google, Microsoft and all the others ALSO charge 30% fees. How is it highway robbery for Apple and not the rest?!
    Those other companies don't force a developer to only use their App Stores.  If someone started a store that didn't charge those fees developers could choose to list their software on that store instead.  Your argument points more to a cartel than anything else.
    Microsoft, Sony & Nintendo forces all developers to use only their App Store for their console platforms.  They all charge 30%.  These are facts in public knowledge (maybe not in your knowledge...)
    You can buy software outside their App Stores, discs are still a thing.  This fact might not be in your knowledge.
Sign In or Register to comment.