Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Not agree.
Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.
Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.
He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?
Case again closed.
You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store. If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition? There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one. No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition. Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.
No, I disapprove nothing.
For example:
I don’t want to sell my own production of potatoes in any other store. I want to sell my potatoes ONLY in my own store, which I built it by my self.
If you want me to sell your own production of potatoes, tomatoes or whatever in my store, you need of course to pay me a commission, but your products in my store are still your property and you can take them back anytime you want. And because I am very aware of the reputation of my store, and because I want to sell only high quality products in it, I may refuse to accept your tomatoes in my store if the quality of them is lower then the criteria I use in order to keep the good name of my store.
So if you think my commission is to high, you are free to go to another store, beloning to someone else, or to built your own one.
There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Not agree.
Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.
Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.
He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?
Case again closed.
You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store. If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition? There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one. No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition. Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.
No, I disapprove nothing.
For example:
I don’t want to sell my own production of potatoes in any other store. I want to sell my potatoes ONLY in my own store, which I built it by my self.
If you want me to sell your own production of potatoes, tomatoes or whatever in my store, you need of course to pay me a commission, but your products in my store are still your property and you can take them back anytime you want. And because I am very aware of the reputation of my store, and because I want to sell only high quality products in it, I may refuse to accept your tomatoes in my store if the quality of them is lower then the criteria I use in order to keep the good name of my store.
So if you think my commission is to high, you are free to go to another store, beloning to someone else, or to built your own one.
There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
Are you monopolist when you give a key from your home only to the members of your family and to the people you trust, and not to everybody asking for?
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Not agree.
Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.
Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.
He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?
Case again closed.
You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store. If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition? There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one. No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition. Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.
No, I disapprove nothing.
For example:
I don’t want to sell my own production of potatoes in any other store. I want to sell my potatoes ONLY in my own store, which I built it by my self.
If you want me to sell your own production of potatoes, tomatoes or whatever in my store, you need of course to pay me a commission, but your products in my store are still your property and you can take them back anytime you want. And because I am very aware of the reputation of my store, and because I want to sell only high quality products in it, I may refuse to accept your tomatoes in my store if the quality of them is lower then the criteria I use in order to keep the good name of my store.
So if you think my commission is to high, you are free to go to another store, beloning to someone else, or to built your own one.
There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
That is exactly it in a nutshell.
It should be crystal clear to literally everyone.
The EU has already given notice that it has found Apple to be harming consumers. Then there is this case and others already in progress.
None of these cases would have been admitted for further investigation unless there was something to be looked at.
This case has served to bring many unknown facts into the public domain which will prove to be vital in understanding the final ruling and contextualising others.
However, what you expressed in just one short paragraph must not be overlooked. It is the crux of the matter and those facts are undeniable and not open to interpretation.
The Walmart analogies are very bad analogies. Bad in the extreme.
When you buy an iPhone you are effectively also buying access to one official store which imposes a host of restrictions on developers and doesn't allow users to have access to certain apps or alternative app stores.
How is that even minimally comparable to freely walking into or out of a Walmart?
I won't venture into how the court might see things although I can imagine a scenario where Apple can continue 'as is' but with strixt6 consumer facing obligations 'pre-device sale'. Other scenarios see Apple's app store business model being impacted.
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Not agree.
Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.
Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.
He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?
Case again closed.
You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store. If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition? There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one. No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition. Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.
No, I disapprove nothing.
For example:
I don’t want to sell my own production of potatoes in any other store. I want to sell my potatoes ONLY in my own store, which I built it by my self.
If you want me to sell your own production of potatoes, tomatoes or whatever in my store, you need of course to pay me a commission, but your products in my store are still your property and you can take them back anytime you want. And because I am very aware of the reputation of my store, and because I want to sell only high quality products in it, I may refuse to accept your tomatoes in my store if the quality of them is lower then the criteria I use in order to keep the good name of my store.
So if you think my commission is to high, you are free to go to another store, beloning to someone else, or to built your own one.
There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
Are you monopolist when you give a key from your home only to the members of your family and to the people you trust, and not to everybody asking for?
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Apple does not control a majority of the mobile marketplace. so case closed. A monopoly has to have control a given market. Ford, HP, GM... like Apple controls the market for their given products but none are a monopoly.
The argument is that the market is not iOS devices, but iOS apps. And Apple very much do control that market.
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Spot on.
There's a market for smartphone apps => Android and iOS apps. Apple created the store, development and distribution infrastructure for iOS apps. Developers are free to develop apps for iOS, Android. Case closed.
crowley said: There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
Are you familiar with the Psystar case per Apple? Psystar attempted to argue that Apple was a monopoly because they wouldn't allow the Mac operating system to be sold on non-Apple hardware. The main part of their argument was attempting to narrowly define the market in question as only consisting of Mac OS. Psystar's owner claimed that the lawsuit would make the OS "more accessible to the public". Sound familiar? Epic's own arguments per iOS and the App Store aren't much different. When the judge ruled in Apple's favor, he had these remarks: "The [Psystar] pleadings, however, fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors"
"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."
crowley said: There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
Are you familiar with the Psystar case per Apple? Psystar attempted to argue that Apple was a monopoly because they wouldn't allow the Mac operating system to be sold on non-Apple hardware. The main part of their argument was attempting to narrowly define the market in question as only consisting of Mac OS. Psystar's owner claimed that the lawsuit would make the OS "more accessible to the public". Sound familiar? Epic's own arguments per iOS and the App Store aren't much different. When the judge ruled in Apple's favor, he had these remarks: "The [Psystar] pleadings, however, fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors"
"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."
My recollection of that case was that it was copyright related, not competition related.
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Spot on.
There's a market for smartphone apps => Android and iOS apps. Apple created the store, development and distribution infrastructure for iOS apps. Developers are free to develop apps for iOS, Android. Case closed.
If things were so clear cut, we wouldn't be talking about this.
It's also worth noting that times change and so do laws.
We may be about to see a shift in legislation over the coming months and years and many of the issues raised in this case will be pertinent.
crowley said: There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
Are you familiar with the Psystar case per Apple? Psystar attempted to argue that Apple was a monopoly because they wouldn't allow the Mac operating system to be sold on non-Apple hardware. The main part of their argument was attempting to narrowly define the market in question as only consisting of Mac OS. Psystar's owner claimed that the lawsuit would make the OS "more accessible to the public". Sound familiar? Epic's own arguments per iOS and the App Store aren't much different. When the judge ruled in Apple's favor, he had these remarks: "The [Psystar] pleadings, however, fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors"
"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."
My recollection of that case was that it was copyright related, not competition related.
Apple originally sued Psystar to stop selling hardware with Mac OS installed. That involved copyright and their user agreement for the OS. Psystar filed a countersuit based on anticompetitive and antitrust issues. Like Epic, they cited things like the Sherman Antitrust Act and were attempting to define a market as a single operating system.
It's all very similar. Epic violates a contract (like Psystar violating the OS user agreement), Apple takes action based on that contract/agreement, Epic launches an antitrust lawsuit in response (claiming iOS is a monopoly just like Psystar claimed Mac OS was a monopoly).
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
There is a market for apps on iOS devices. Those same apps can also be sold on Android if the developer knows what they're doing. Case closed.
The developer is irrelevant, the consumer is all that matters, and from the consumers perspective an iOS app and an Android app are not substitutable because iOS app binaries do not run on Android and Android app binaries do not run on iOS. That is a significant argument for iOS apps representing a market and Android apps representing a different market.
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Spot on.
There's a market for smartphone apps => Android and iOS apps. Apple created the store, development and distribution infrastructure for iOS apps. Developers are free to develop apps for iOS, Android. Case closed.
Can we quit with this pithy "case closed" nonsense please, clearly it's not as clear cut as you guys are making out else we wouldn't be having the conversation.
My contention is that for the purpose of competition law, which is what matters here, smartphones are substitutable, and constitute a market. However, apps that run on smartphones, because they are bound to a platform, might be considered as their own markets, as while an iPhone owning consumer can substitute one iOS (e.g.) Notes app for another on iOS, they cannot substitute an Android Notes app because Android apps do not run on Android, and the vast majority of consumers will own only one of an iOS or Android device. The fact that you'd need to change your device means that you could say that these are differently dependent markets, that developers often operate across.
crowley said: There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
Are you familiar with the Psystar case per Apple? Psystar attempted to argue that Apple was a monopoly because they wouldn't allow the Mac operating system to be sold on non-Apple hardware. The main part of their argument was attempting to narrowly define the market in question as only consisting of Mac OS. Psystar's owner claimed that the lawsuit would make the OS "more accessible to the public". Sound familiar? Epic's own arguments per iOS and the App Store aren't much different. When the judge ruled in Apple's favor, he had these remarks: "The [Psystar] pleadings, however, fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors"
"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."
Not really the same as both the hardware and the software were made and sold by Apple, which isn't the case with apps for the store.
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Apple does not control a majority of the mobile marketplace. so case closed. A monopoly has to have control a given market. Ford, HP, GM... like Apple controls the market for their given products but none are a monopoly.
The argument is that the market is not iOS devices, but iOS apps. And Apple very much do control that market.
Aside from the fact there is nothing illegal about being a monopoly, the problem with this argument is the efforts to redefine it when a company becomes too successful. All of a sudden, app stores for a phone should be seen as a monopoly even when the phone itself doesn’t represent a monopoly market.
I find that a little odd because no one has ever told Tesco that they MUST allow Sainsburys to set up franchises inside Tesco’s stores.
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Not agree.
Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.
Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.
He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?
Case again closed.
You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store. If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition? There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one. No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition. Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.
No, I disapprove nothing.
For example:
I don’t want to sell my own production of potatoes in any other store. I want to sell my potatoes ONLY in my own store, which I built it by my self.
If you want me to sell your own production of potatoes, tomatoes or whatever in my store, you need of course to pay me a commission, but your products in my store are still your property and you can take them back anytime you want. And because I am very aware of the reputation of my store, and because I want to sell only high quality products in it, I may refuse to accept your tomatoes in my store if the quality of them is lower then the criteria I use in order to keep the good name of my store.
So if you think my commission is to high, you are free to go to another store, beloning to someone else, or to built your own one.
There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
Are you monopolist when you give a key from your home only to the members of your family and to the people you trust, and not to everybody asking for?
The fuck are you talking about man?
The manager of the largest Marks and Spencers in London enters the shop one morning and finds that Honest Tony has opened a shop in the centre of the store, selling everything from knock off Joseph cookware, he’s made himself, that melts in the oven, to anti-Semitic memorabilia’s and old recordings of Hitler speeches (Honest Tony describes himself as a colourful character). When they tell Honest Tony he has to go, Tony tells them that M&S has a monopoly on selling stuff in M&S stores. He says he should allowed to use M&S resources (space, heating, lighting, access to the largest footfall in the area) to sell the porn videos he made himself on his last trip to Thailand.
“You’re actually squatting in our shop,” says the manager.
“So sue me,” says Honest Tony. “And I’ll rile up everyone who hates you for being you and cause one hell of a stink.” He offers them one of his videos (“Honest Tone’s Bangin’ Bangkok Extravaganza”) by way of compensation for the heating, lighting etc.
That’s what he’s talking about, though his analogy does miss the mark in one key respect: Epic doesn’t even have decency to offer Apple a home-made porn video in return.
crowley said: Not really the same as both the hardware and the software were made and sold by Apple, which isn't the case with apps for the store.
The apps not being made by Apple is irrelevant. Epic, just like Psystar, wants the court to view the OS as the entirety of the market because that's the only way they can claim lack of competition. You yourself are claiming iOS is the entirety of the market. The judge in the Psystar case rejected that argument due to lack of evidence that Apple's OS did not have competitors. He specifically says that the OS was not unique enough to be considered outside of competition. And that point is also true of iOS. Everyone knows that Android is a competitor, just like everyone knew that Windows was a competitor. Everyone knows that Epic and any other software developer can release games on other platforms that compete for $$ from gamers versus what appears on iOS.
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Apple does not control a majority of the mobile marketplace. so case closed. A monopoly has to have control a given market. Ford, HP, GM... like Apple controls the market for their given products but none are a monopoly.
The argument is that the market is not iOS devices, but iOS apps. And Apple very much do control that market.
Aside from the fact there is nothing illegal about being a monopoly, the problem with this argument is the efforts to redefine it when a company becomes too successful. All of a sudden, app stores for a phone should be seen as a monopoly even when the phone itself doesn’t represent a monopoly market.
I find that a little odd because no one has ever told Tesco that they MUST allow Sainsburys to set up franchises inside Tesco’s stores.
Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly.
Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola has the right to change their rules.
That’s not a monopoly.
A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market.
Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market.
Case closed.
There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store. Case reopened.
Not agree.
Wal-Mart in its own stores, it’s also not exclusively owner of the drinks made by Coca Cola, but because Coca-Cola is willing to sell their drinks through Mal-Mart, it is more than a normal, that therefore Coca-Cola has to pay a commission. If not agree with the commission, Coca-Cola is free to go to other markt places.
Everyone willing to sell his own app through the iOS market is doing this volunteerly, after considering all the financial PROS and CONS of if doing this. Apple did not threaten him with a gun in order to push him into the AppStore.
He is entirely free to go to a different apps markets or to establish his own one, after first creating his own platform (very easy to do it and cost nothing, according some people). Why complaining then?
Case again closed.
You disproved your own point, iOS apps cannot reasonably be sold anywhere other than the iOS App Store. If the Apple App Store is WalMart in your analogy, who is CostCo, or Target, or any other competition? There is no "different app market" and no one can establish their own one. No one else can sell iOS apps in any way that consumers can reasonably access, so there is no competition. Even if you consider jailbreaking as an alternative (I do not, at least not a reasonable one), the market share there is so low that Apple would still qualify as a monopoly.
No, I disapprove nothing.
For example:
I don’t want to sell my own production of potatoes in any other store. I want to sell my potatoes ONLY in my own store, which I built it by my self.
If you want me to sell your own production of potatoes, tomatoes or whatever in my store, you need of course to pay me a commission, but your products in my store are still your property and you can take them back anytime you want. And because I am very aware of the reputation of my store, and because I want to sell only high quality products in it, I may refuse to accept your tomatoes in my store if the quality of them is lower then the criteria I use in order to keep the good name of my store.
So if you think my commission is to high, you are free to go to another store, beloning to someone else, or to built your own one.
There is no other store. You cannot build another store. That's the entire point. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about Wal Mart or potatoes or any other nonsense, the subject is iOS apps, and Apple's store is the only store. And that's why we're talking about monopoly.
Are you monopolist when you give a key from your home only to the members of your family and to the people you trust, and not to everybody asking for?
The fuck are you talking about man?
The manager of the largest Marks and Spencers in London enters the shop one morning and finds that Honest Tony has opened a shop in the centre of the store, selling everything from knock off Joseph cookware, he’s made himself, that melts in the oven, to anti-Semitic memorabilia’s and old recordings of Hitler speeches (Honest Tony describes himself as a colourful character). When they tell Honest Tony he has to go, Tony tells them that M&S has a monopoly on selling stuff in M&S stores. He says he should allowed to use M&S resources (space, heating, lighting, access to the largest footfall in the area) to sell the porn videos he made himself on his last trip to Thailand.
“You’re actually squatting in our shop,” says the manager.
“So sue me,” says Honest Tony. “And I’ll rile up everyone who hates you for being you and cause one hell of a stink.” He offers them one of his videos (“Honest Tone’s Bangin’ Bangkok Extravaganza”) by way of compensation for the heating, lighting etc.
That’s what he’s talking about, though his analogy does miss the mark in one key respect: Epic doesn’t even have decency to offer Apple a home-made porn video in return.
This supermarket stuff is completely irrelevant. Tesco, Sainsburys, M&S and Honest Joe all sell substitutable products. You can buy a loaf of bread from each, hell you can probably even buy exactly the same brand loaf of bread from many of them. Supermarkets have very few exclusivity deals, and even when they do, it'll be for a particular brand, not an entire type of product. Moreover, none of these supermarkets to my knowledge sell any products where there are secondary purchases where the supermarket receives a mandatory 30% kick back. No supermarket says anything like "you bought our bread, so you have to buy our butter too".
I don't understand why there is an inability for many to grasp this distinction. Supermarkets are not comparable.
And I'm not sure why you're being crass with this Honest Tony porn stuff. not necessary.
crowley said: Not really the same as both the hardware and the software were made and sold by Apple, which isn't the case with apps for the store.
The apps not being made by Apple is irrelevant. Epic, just like Psystar, wants the court to view the OS as the entirety of the market because that's the only way they can claim lack of competition. You yourself are claiming iOS is the entirety of the market. The judge in the Psystar case rejected that argument due to lack of evidence that Apple's OS did not have competitors. He specifically says that the OS was not unique enough to be considered outside of competition. And that point is also true of iOS. Everyone knows that Android is a competitor, just like everyone knew that Windows was a competitor. Everyone knows that Epic and any other software developer can release games on other platforms that compete for $$ from gamers versus what appears on iOS.
Ok? It's still not the same. Just because a past case was dismissed because of a lack of evidence doesn't mean a future one will be. It depends what evidence they present. I would think that would be obvious.
Comments
It should be crystal clear to literally everyone.
The EU has already given notice that it has found Apple to be harming consumers. Then there is this case and others already in progress.
None of these cases would have been admitted for further investigation unless there was something to be looked at.
This case has served to bring many unknown facts into the public domain which will prove to be vital in understanding the final ruling and contextualising others.
However, what you expressed in just one short paragraph must not be overlooked. It is the crux of the matter and those facts are undeniable and not open to interpretation.
The Walmart analogies are very bad analogies. Bad in the extreme.
When you buy an iPhone you are effectively also buying access to one official store which imposes a host of restrictions on developers and doesn't allow users to have access to certain apps or alternative app stores.
How is that even minimally comparable to freely walking into or out of a Walmart?
I won't venture into how the court might see things although I can imagine a scenario where Apple can continue 'as is' but with strixt6 consumer facing obligations 'pre-device sale'. Other scenarios see Apple's app store business model being impacted.
"The [Psystar] pleadings, however, fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors"
"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."
It's also worth noting that times change and so do laws.
We may be about to see a shift in legislation over the coming months and years and many of the issues raised in this case will be pertinent.
It's all very similar. Epic violates a contract (like Psystar violating the OS user agreement), Apple takes action based on that contract/agreement, Epic launches an antitrust lawsuit in response (claiming iOS is a monopoly just like Psystar claimed Mac OS was a monopoly).
My contention is that for the purpose of competition law, which is what matters here, smartphones are substitutable, and constitute a market. However, apps that run on smartphones, because they are bound to a platform, might be considered as their own markets, as while an iPhone owning consumer can substitute one iOS (e.g.) Notes app for another on iOS, they cannot substitute an Android Notes app because Android apps do not run on Android, and the vast majority of consumers will own only one of an iOS or Android device. The fact that you'd need to change your device means that you could say that these are differently dependent markets, that developers often operate across.
I find that a little odd because no one has ever told Tesco that they MUST allow Sainsburys to set up franchises inside Tesco’s stores.
That’s what he’s talking about, though his analogy does miss the mark in one key respect: Epic doesn’t even have decency to offer Apple a home-made porn video in return.
I don't understand why there is an inability for many to grasp this distinction. Supermarkets are not comparable.
And I'm not sure why you're being crass with this Honest Tony porn stuff. not necessary.