Apple has every right to completely remove the app store and sell a phone with only apple created apps. Nobody stops apple from doing that.
But since they have created an app store where third parties can sell their ware, they have a legal obligation to maintain a fair market. They can't have their cake (by getting all the third party app ecosystem) and eat it too (by using anti-competitive measures against these third party developers). Remember, the legal suits and complaints are by these third party developers and not by the government. They have every legal right to expect a free and fair market and to sue when they don't get it.
It is not too much to ask that every apple app also pass through the same gates that third party apps pass through. Apple apps should have access to the same capabilities that third party apps do. (Otherwise how is it different from IE and Netscape?)
So does a brick and mortar store that sells their own generic brand for cheaper have to allow their competitors to sell their generic brands in its store? Of course not. Apple creates the hardware, software, OS and everything these developers use.
This is said time and time again and it is incorrect.
The problem is when that 'brick and mortar store' owns the entire commerce platform and prevents other stores from even existing on it.
Apple does not prevent any other "store". They just don't allow the "other store" on the device, or other stores to advertise on the device. People subscribe to Netflix, Spotify, etc., via their respective web sites. Those are "other stores". They just can't advertise them on Apple's App Store. Same as Target won't allow Walmart to put "Greater Value" branded items in Target adds, or hang flyers in Target's stores.
Apple has every right to completely remove the app store and sell a phone with only apple created apps. Nobody stops apple from doing that.
But since they have created an app store where third parties can sell their ware, they have a legal obligation to maintain a fair market. They can't have their cake (by getting all the third party app ecosystem) and eat it too (by using anti-competitive measures against these third party developers). Remember, the legal suits and complaints are by these third party developers and not by the government. They have every legal right to expect a free and fair market and to sue when they don't get it.
It is not too much to ask that every apple app also pass through the same gates that third party apps pass through. Apple apps should have access to the same capabilities that third party apps do. (Otherwise how is it different from IE and Netscape?)
Apple has ZERO obligation to host anyone's app. It's Apple's App Store. Just like Target is not required to carry Walmart's "Greater Value" brand, and is not required to allow Walmart to setup a store within the Target store, to directly sell their "Greater Value" branded items.
They do. And they do. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
Target or Walmart or whoever is required to not do an anti-completive practices by law. The anti-competitive practices will vary between a brick-and-mortar store and a smartphone.
Brick-and-Mortar stores face anti-competitive lawsuits about predatory pricing, and other such practices and had to settle many of them. While in smartphones anti-competitive behavior is about preferential treatment to apple's apps over third party ones (either in terms of the capabilities available, or in terms of the additional cost).
Apple has every right to completely remove the app store and sell a phone with only apple created apps. Nobody stops apple from doing that.
But since they have created an app store where third parties can sell their ware, they have a legal obligation to maintain a fair market. They can't have their cake (by getting all the third party app ecosystem) and eat it too (by using anti-competitive measures against these third party developers). Remember, the legal suits and complaints are by these third party developers and not by the government. They have every legal right to expect a free and fair market and to sue when they don't get it.
It is not too much to ask that every apple app also pass through the same gates that third party apps pass through. Apple apps should have access to the same capabilities that third party apps do. (Otherwise how is it different from IE and Netscape?)
Apple has ZERO obligation to host anyone's app. It's Apple's App Store. Just like Target is not required to carry Walmart's "Greater Value" brand, and is not required to allow Walmart to setup a store within the Target store, to directly sell their "Greater Value" branded items.
They do. And they do. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
Target or Walmart or whoever is required to not do an anti-completive practices by law. The anti-competitive practices will vary between a brick-and-mortar store and a smartphone.
Brick-and-Mortar stores face anti-competitive lawsuits about predatory pricing, and other such practices and had to settle many of them. While in smartphones anti-competitive behavior is about preferential treatment to apple's apps over third party ones (either in terms of the capabilities available, or in terms of the additional cost).
Citation, please.
And do you have any evidence of Apple doing that?
The EU charge is about "anti-competitive App Store fees" - nothing to do with preferential treatment of apps. For the apps Apple gives the apps away (as a part of the OS/Platform), 15% or 30% of $0 is $0. Other app developers are welcome to give theirs away for free, too. And other developers are welcome to engineer/design/manufacture their own hardware, OS, etc. - they don't have to use Apple's.
For the apps Apple sells, I suppose since the development is internal, they could put a 15% or 30% "on the books", but then it's only funny money and simply an exercise in accounting.
Apple has every right to completely remove the app store and sell a phone with only apple created apps. Nobody stops apple from doing that.
But since they have created an app store where third parties can sell their ware, they have a legal obligation to maintain a fair market. They can't have their cake (by getting all the third party app ecosystem) and eat it too (by using anti-competitive measures against these third party developers). Remember, the legal suits and complaints are by these third party developers and not by the government. They have every legal right to expect a free and fair market and to sue when they don't get it.
It is not too much to ask that every apple app also pass through the same gates that third party apps pass through. Apple apps should have access to the same capabilities that third party apps do. (Otherwise how is it different from IE and Netscape?)
So does a brick and mortar store that sells their own generic brand for cheaper have to allow their competitors to sell their generic brands in its store? Of course not. Apple creates the hardware, software, OS and everything these developers use.
This is said time and time again and it is incorrect.
The problem is when that 'brick and mortar store' owns the entire commerce platform and prevents other stores from even existing onit.
Apple does not prevent any other "store". They just don't allow the "other store" onthedevice, or other stores to advertise on the device. People subscribe to Netflix, Spotify, etc., via their respective web sites. Those are "other stores". They just can't advertise them on Apple's App Store. Same as Target won't allow Walmart to put "Greater Value" branded items in Target adds, or hang flyers in Target's stores.
See the analogy? It's better than you'll admit.
You seem to be repeating what I said.
Netflix and Spotify are not app stores or even 'stores' in the sense that is being scrutinised.
If you want to get those apps onto an Apple device you cannot do it without jumping through the Apple App Store hoop.
Apple has every right to completely remove the app store and sell a phone with only apple created apps. Nobody stops apple from doing that.
But since they have created an app store where third parties can sell their ware, they have a legal obligation to maintain a fair market. They can't have their cake (by getting all the third party app ecosystem) and eat it too (by using anti-competitive measures against these third party developers). Remember, the legal suits and complaints are by these third party developers and not by the government. They have every legal right to expect a free and fair market and to sue when they don't get it.
It is not too much to ask that every apple app also pass through the same gates that third party apps pass through. Apple apps should have access to the same capabilities that third party apps do. (Otherwise how is it different from IE and Netscape?)
So does a brick and mortar store that sells their own generic brand for cheaper have to allow their competitors to sell their generic brands in its store? Of course not. Apple creates the hardware, software, OS and everything these developers use.
This is said time and time again and it is incorrect.
The problem is when that 'brick and mortar store' owns the entire commerce platform and prevents other stores from even existing onit.
Apple does not prevent any other "store". They just don't allow the "other store" onthedevice, or other stores to advertise on the device. People subscribe to Netflix, Spotify, etc., via their respective web sites. Those are "other stores". They just can't advertise them on Apple's App Store. Same as Target won't allow Walmart to put "Greater Value" branded items in Target adds, or hang flyers in Target's stores.
See the analogy? It's better than you'll admit.
You seem to be repeating what I said.
Netflix and Spotify are not app stores or even 'stores' in the sense that is being scrutinised.
If you want to get those apps onto an Apple device you cannot do it without jumping through the Apple App Store hoop.
Absolutely not!
Netflix and Spotify are absolutely stores - you can go to their web site on any Apple device (iPhone/iPad/Mac) and purchase a subscription without jumping through any hoops (purchasing something at a web site makes the site a "store".) Apple's App Store is not involved in the purchase from them.
Apple has every right to completely remove the app store and sell a phone with only apple created apps. Nobody stops apple from doing that.
But since they have created an app store where third parties can sell their ware, they have a legal obligation to maintain a fair market. They can't have their cake (by getting all the third party app ecosystem) and eat it too (by using anti-competitive measures against these third party developers). Remember, the legal suits and complaints are by these third party developers and not by the government. They have every legal right to expect a free and fair market and to sue when they don't get it.
It is not too much to ask that every apple app also pass through the same gates that third party apps pass through. Apple apps should have access to the same capabilities that third party apps do. (Otherwise how is it different from IE and Netscape?)
So does a brick and mortar store that sells their own generic brand for cheaper have to allow their competitors to sell their generic brands in its store? Of course not. Apple creates the hardware, software, OS and everything these developers use.
This is said time and time again and it is incorrect.
The problem is when that 'brick and mortar store' owns the entire commerce platform and prevents other stores from even existing onit.
Apple does not prevent any other "store". They just don't allow the "other store" onthedevice, or other stores to advertise on the device. People subscribe to Netflix, Spotify, etc., via their respective web sites. Those are "other stores". They just can't advertise them on Apple's App Store. Same as Target won't allow Walmart to put "Greater Value" branded items in Target adds, or hang flyers in Target's stores.
See the analogy? It's better than you'll admit.
You seem to be repeating what I said.
Netflix and Spotify are not app stores or even 'stores' in the sense that is being scrutinised.
If you want to get those apps onto an Apple device you cannot do it without jumping through the Apple App Store hoop.
Absolutely not!
Netflix and Spotify are absolutely stores - you can go to their web site on any Apple device (iPhone/iPad/Mac) and purchase a subscription without jumping through any hoops (purchasing something at a web site makes the site a "store".) Apple's App Store is not involved in the purchase from them.
This is what I said:
"The problem is when that 'brick and mortar store' owns the entire commerce platform and prevents other stores from even existing on it."
The 'brick and mortar store' is the Apple App Store. The 'platform' and 'it' are an Apple mobile device.
This is what you said:
"They just don't allow the "other store" on the device, or other stores to advertise on the device"
Those statements mean the same.
Netflix and Spotify web subscription services are not app stores.
Comments
See the analogy? It's better than you'll admit.
Brick-and-Mortar stores face anti-competitive lawsuits about predatory pricing, and other such practices and had to settle many of them. While in smartphones anti-competitive behavior is about preferential treatment to apple's apps over third party ones (either in terms of the capabilities available, or in terms of the additional cost).
And do you have any evidence of Apple doing that?
The EU charge is about "anti-competitive App Store fees" - nothing to do with preferential treatment of apps. For the apps Apple gives the apps away (as a part of the OS/Platform), 15% or 30% of $0 is $0. Other app developers are welcome to give theirs away for free, too. And other developers are welcome to engineer/design/manufacture their own hardware, OS, etc. - they don't have to use Apple's.
For the apps Apple sells, I suppose since the development is internal, they could put a 15% or 30% "on the books", but then it's only funny money and simply an exercise in accounting.
Netflix and Spotify are not app stores or even 'stores' in the sense that is being scrutinised.
If you want to get those apps onto an Apple device you cannot do it without jumping through the Apple App Store hoop.
Netflix and Spotify are absolutely stores - you can go to their web site on any Apple device (iPhone/iPad/Mac) and purchase a subscription without jumping through any hoops (purchasing something at a web site makes the site a "store".) Apple's App Store is not involved in the purchase from them.
"The problem is when that 'brick and mortar store' owns the entire commerce platform and prevents other stores from even existing on it."
The 'brick and mortar store' is the Apple App Store. The 'platform' and 'it' are an Apple mobile device.
This is what you said:
"They just don't allow the "other store" on the device, or other stores to advertise on the device"
Those statements mean the same.
Netflix and Spotify web subscription services are not app stores.