Ages of Empire, Forza, Halo, Minecraft, Gears of War and Fallout. What do all these games have in common? They are some of the most popular and money making games available on an Xbox AND .... they are all games owned by Microsoft.
What about the Microsoft Store commission they charge to Xbox game developers? Is it "unfair" that Microsoft don't have to pay a commission when Xbox players purchase a game owned by Microsoft?
Should a developer of an Xbox game that is similar to Halo, be able to sell their game in the Microsoft Store without having to pay the commission because it would be "a conflict of interest" for Microsoft to charge their commission for a game that competes with Halo and the playing field should be leveled?
After all, Microsoft has the same single-branded "monopoly" with their Xbox platform as Apple does with their iOS platform. Or are you going to cop out and say that that's up to the regulators to determine because every platform is different?
Of course it's up to the regulators. I have no power.
But they should be afraid to compete on their own platforms because they will draw the attention of companies like Epic, Spotify, Tiles and from organizations like the Coalition of App Fairness, who thinks that they are entitled to use any platforms they want, without having to worry about competition from the platform owners or having to compensate them for making money on their platforms. And will cry like spoiled brats to regulatory authorities if they don't get what they want.
Regulatory authorities shouldn't even be concern of this type of competition, unless the platform is a monopoly in its relevant market.
Monopoly isn't required for damaging anti-competitive behaviour. ...
It (monopoly) is required under the law. Otherwise, in a free market economy, they can simply market their goods elsewhere -- unless you live in Elizabeth Warren's world and hate big corporations because they are strong and powerful and think that they should bend over to pick up the little guys and boost them up to their level.
China though feels that that subjective "anti-competitive behavior" should be suppressed. And they have started doing just exactly that. You would like it there.
So are you also suggesting that since Costco sell their own Kirkland brand of bath tissue and papers towels, the makers of the likes of Charmin and Bounty should not have to pay Costco anything to be able to compete, by having free access to Costco paying membership customers in Costco own warehouse store?
What about Walmart? Walmart sell dozens of their own brand products, that are often less expensive than the competition. So should all makers of competing products be able to sell their products on Walmart shelves and not compensate Walmart in doing so? This to "level the playing field", so competing product makers can better compete with Walmart, in a Walmart?
Comparing brick and mortar retailers isn't entirely analagous .
Walmart, Target, Costco, Macy's, and all the other B&M stores are resellers. They buy the items from the manufacture or wholesaler (and yes, I realize there are accounting hoops that in many cases result in them not actually paying for the goods until after they resell them), then resell them. Apple doesn't do that. Apple is a consignment shop, not a retailer. They sell products on behalf of others, they don't sell products they own.
I'm not sure how much my opinion is going to change yet, or even if it will. It's still Apple's infrastructure that's making the whole thing even possible, and under no circumstances should anyone think that I don't believe Apple deserves just compensation for that. They absolutely do.
Regulatory authorities shouldn't even be concern of this type of competition, unless the platform is a monopoly in its relevant market.
Monopoly isn't required for damaging anti-competitive behaviour.
Off the top of my head, the only two anti-competitive behavior I can think of, that don't involve having a monopoly, are predatory pricing and collusion. But these are usually attempts to eliminate competition or competitors and to artificially fix prices for the consumers. And they only come under anti-trust if they succeed. Apple is doing none of this, by competing with Spotify on their own platform.
Remember back when Microsoft was charged with anti-competitive behavior because they had IE pre-installed in their Windows OS? This put other browsers at a competitive disadvantage. So Microsoft was forced to sell Windows without IE pre-installed AND provide choices of competing browsers that consumers can choose from, when initially installing Windows on their PC. But at the same time Microsoft was forced to do this, Apple Mac OS came with Safari pre-inhaled.
Why was Apple allowed to pre-install Safari and Microsoft was being anti-competitive by pre-installing IE? Because Microsoft had a monopoly with Windows, which was over 90% of the desktop OS market. Developers developing browsers for computers had no where else to go, in order to stay in business. Apple on the other hand, had a single digit marketshare with their Mac OS. Developers of browsers can choose to develop for Windows. It was not essential for developers to develop for Mac OS, in order to say in business.
So unless iOS becomes a monopoly in the mobile OS market, Apple can do things like pre-install their Apple Music App in iOS, compete with Spotify on their own platform and charge Spotify a commission and not be anti-competitive. Spotify is competing on a level the playing field because they are not getting any special treatment just because they have a service that happens to compete with an Apple service.
So yes, iOS would have to be a monopoly in its relevant market, before their competitive behavior with Spotify can be construed as being anti-completive. Unless there's some sort of predatory pricing or collusion involve.
Well, I had Tiles for a couple years -- but they were expensive and not great. Seemed nobody was running the Tile app, so your lost stuff stayed lost. I bought a bunch of Apple's AirTags when they came out and they work better and are cheaper. Tile and now Life360 are a business with no future. And to hear that Life360 sells customer data -- they've slit their own throat.
I get that Epic doesn't like to pay 30% commission to Apple, but Amazon and Netflix didn't want to either and they found a solution that works for them. I'm thinking Epic would be better off negotiating with Google and Apple, not suing them. Make some money while their product is hot. By the time the Epic trial is over, they may not have a product anyone wants. Or more likely they'll get bought out by someone, someone who doesn't want to participate in a multi-year lawsuit.
As for Spotify, I think they have a case. Since Apple competes in music streaming, Spotify should NOT be charged a commission. It gives Apple an unfair advantage. Same with other categories. If the host OS competes, they need to eliminate commissions for competitors in that product category. Probably should do the same for video streaming and audiobooks. Apple's not making money from Netflix and Audible anyway.
So are you also suggesting that since Costco sell their own Kirkland brand of bath tissue and papers towels, the makers of the likes of Charmin and Bounty should not have to pay Costco anything to be able to compete, by having free access to Costco paying membership customers in Costco own warehouse store?
What about Walmart? Walmart sell dozens of their own brand products, that are often less expensive than the competition. So should all makers of competing products be able to sell their products on Walmart shelves and not compensate Walmart in doing so? This to "level the playing field", so competing product makers can better compete with Walmart, in a Walmart?
You can also say that this is "unfair" to the product makers, but how is this "unfair" to the consumers?
Do you think that comparing Apple to Costco and Walmart is painting a good picture? Lots of business have issues with the way major stores enter into markets and use their competitive advantages to crowd out their own business partners. This is the whole issue with operating a platform or store, when you start competing with the companies that you service you create a conflict of interest, and open yourself to criticism of anti-competitive behaviour.
You can substitute Costco/Walmart with ANY grocery chain -- they all offer in-house brands that directly compete w/ their vendor brands, often right next to each other on the same shelf. The vendor brands have to pay "slotting fees" to get their items on the shelves, the in-store product does not. It is 100% accepted practice and has been for decades, and is no different than Apple offering an in-house brand next to their own vendors' brands in the same store. The analogy works as far as I can see.
Getting real tired of all this App Store BS bashing.
This is just about greedy losers companies wanting to steal from Apples success
apple should just make another public App store. One where no commission is needed but it has be downloaded separately and Apple doesn’t do any maintainenace and customer service for it, in other words a free for all but with warning messages that “downloading and installing these programs could be harmful to your phone as Apple is not responsible for it”
these companies can go on that store and let’s see what happens
Comments
Definitely.
Probably not.
Definitely not.
Probably not.
A little bit.
Maybe, but probably not.
Of course it's up to the regulators. I have no power.
I never said anything about afraid.
Monopoly isn't required for damaging anti-competitive behaviour.
Yeah.
Walmart, Target, Costco, Macy's, and all the other B&M stores are resellers. They buy the items from the manufacture or wholesaler (and yes, I realize there are accounting hoops that in many cases result in them not actually paying for the goods until after they resell them), then resell them. Apple doesn't do that. Apple is a consignment shop, not a retailer. They sell products on behalf of others, they don't sell products they own.
I'm not sure how much my opinion is going to change yet, or even if it will. It's still Apple's infrastructure that's making the whole thing even possible, and under no circumstances should anyone think that I don't believe Apple deserves just compensation for that. They absolutely do.
Remember back when Microsoft was charged with anti-competitive behavior because they had IE pre-installed in their Windows OS? This put other browsers at a competitive disadvantage. So Microsoft was forced to sell Windows without IE pre-installed AND provide choices of competing browsers that consumers can choose from, when initially installing Windows on their PC. But at the same time Microsoft was forced to do this, Apple Mac OS came with Safari pre-inhaled.
Why was Apple allowed to pre-install Safari and Microsoft was being anti-competitive by pre-installing IE? Because Microsoft had a monopoly with Windows, which was over 90% of the desktop OS market. Developers developing browsers for computers had no where else to go, in order to stay in business. Apple on the other hand, had a single digit marketshare with their Mac OS. Developers of browsers can choose to develop for Windows. It was not essential for developers to develop for Mac OS, in order to say in business.
So unless iOS becomes a monopoly in the mobile OS market, Apple can do things like pre-install their Apple Music App in iOS, compete with Spotify on their own platform and charge Spotify a commission and not be anti-competitive. Spotify is competing on a level the playing field because they are not getting any special treatment just because they have a service that happens to compete with an Apple service.
So yes, iOS would have to be a monopoly in its relevant market, before their competitive behavior with Spotify can be construed as being anti-completive. Unless there's some sort of predatory pricing or collusion involve.