Clearly there's an issue if Apple lets an app be developed and used for several years, and then disallows it when they make their own version.
Many examples of this very thing have been reported where Apple have copied app functionality and then removed apps for the store for violating the terms as “duplicating existing features” or apps have been removed just before new versions of iOS were released which contain the same functionality.
There has to be a system of checks and balances. The idea that Apple can do whatever it wants with its own platform isn’t good enough. That is just a copout and a way to circumvent fairness, openness, and possibly even the law.
If you want to have a platform and pretend to make it available to everyone, it has to actually be available to everyone, without various anti competitive practices that prevent any one particular company or group or political ideology from exposure. Let the market handle it, not the whims of a few people in Cupertino.
When did Apple “pretend” to make their platform available to everyone?
It’s only ever been on Apple devices - you have to buy an Apple device to use their platforms. And developers have to pay to sign up to Apple’s iOS Developer Program (and be granted membership) to get their software on those devices. That developer agreement is very specific about what they can a can’t do. Remember, the first year of the platforms existence was without 3rd party development, so it was a completely closed system, not much different than the iPod at the time. (And remember Apple actually invited certain developers to write games for the iPod - no one complained then about being closed and unfair.)
The whims of a few people in Cupertino!?
It’s those few people who decide whether they’re going to continue to spend billions and billions of dollars every year on R&D to keep those devices and that platform on the market! When you make a product you’re actually allowed to put it on the market as-is and let people decide whether they want to buy it or not. If they don’t agree with your business model or “ideaology”, they don’t have to buy your product or support your cause or use your service. That’s the free market... The free market should not decide what you make - it should only decide whether it’ll be successful or not. Then it’s up to that company to decide to make changes or go out of business.
Kaspersky wants access to the underlying OS, because that’s the only way their software can work. If your software doesn’t or can’t run on the platform because of the way the platform was designed, go find another platform to write software for. Would you play golf with a sledge hammer and then demand a more fair handicap? No you either find something else to play with (a golf club) or find a better place and use for that tool.
There’s a laugh. Probably be a good idea to stop selling to Russia altogether if this nonsense is allowed.
I’m ok with this. Especially if the accusations of Kaparsky being a puppet for the Kremlin ^H^H^H^H^H er FSB / Putin, and spying on us are in fact true.
There has to be a system of checks and balances. The idea that Apple can do whatever it wants with its own platform isn’t good enough. That is just a copout and a way to circumvent fairness, openness, and possibly even the law.
If you want to have a platform and pretend to make it available to everyone, it has to actually be available to everyone, without various anti competitive practices that prevent any one particular company or group or political ideology from exposure. Let the market handle it, not the whims of a few people in Cupertino.
Huh? Are you on crack or something? If you want openness, switch to Android and stop trolling Apple forums. I don’t want my OS to be open, thank you very much. Transparency, sure, but locked down. There’s plenty of competition for Apple, but you just don’t get it n
There has to be a system of checks and balances. The idea that Apple can do whatever it wants with its own platform isn’t good enough. That is just a copout and a way to circumvent fairness, openness, and possibly even the law.
If you want to have a platform and pretend to make it available to everyone, it has to actually be available to everyone, without various anti competitive practices that prevent any one particular company or group or political ideology from exposure. Let the market handle it, not the whims of a few people in Cupertino.
What bullshit! If you don’t like the policies, just get android / develop for android. Apple owns the OS and the App Store so you need to play by their rules. They didn’t have to let any third party apps on their system! And they have lots of apps in their store that compete with their own so that argument doesn’t hold water.
That was the argument Microsoft used with IE and blocking Netscape. They lost that battle legally even if Netscape went the way of the dodo bird.
Actually no, that’s not the argument they used at all. MS forced OEM PC makers to not bundle Netscape, by threatening to revoke their Windows licenses if they did. This was an abuse of their monopoly on desktop OSes. Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones, there are plenty of alternatives.
McDonald's has a monopoly over the products it sells in its stores! Oh no!
If only Apple apps were available in the App Store, this would be a reasonable analogy.
The rules are the same for everyone, they just want to bypass what makes iOS secure to install their Russian spyware.
But that isn’t the case. Third party developers have to play by the rules and not use custom APIs or undocumented calls, restrictions which Apple don’t have to stick to.
This is analogous to LEGO creating bricks and allowing third parties to create their own designs based on the available bricks, but they can NEVER make their own bricks, or use LEGO’s secret bricks. A third party would never be able to create anything that was greater than something LEGO could design because only they control what bricks are available.
The difference is that Apple owns the store. If you owned a store, should anyone be able to sell whatever they want in it? Is controlling what is sold in your store a "monopoly"? As the owner, if you want to sell your homemade items next to other products made by others, don't you have that right?
I buy Apple products because I like Apple's level of control. I'm not always please, but I only need to look over at the Android Play store to see what I don't want. The Play store is infested with fake apps, malware and just plain junk. Android itself is rarely supported for more than 2 years with updates. Buying an Android phone means you'll be buying another phone in 2-years and installing apps on it is a minefield just waiting for you to make the wrong step, and Google is tracking your every move which it puts up for sale to the highest bidder.
The difference is that Apple owns the store. If you owned a store, should anyone be able to sell whatever they want in it? Is controlling what is sold in your store a "monopoly"? As the owner, if you want to sell your homemade items next to other products made by others, don't you have that right?
How can something that is exactly the same be different? I already said the example of McDonalds restricting what was for sale in their stores is not a monopoly. Neither is Apple deciding what should be included in the store a monopoly. Apple only allowing apps from the official store to be installed or abusing their position, these actions are potentially monopolistic.
I buy Apple products because I like Apple's level of control. I'm not always please, but I only need to look over at the Android Play store to see what I don't want. The Play store is infested with fake apps, malware and just plain junk. Android itself is rarely supported for more than 2 years with updates. Buying an Android phone means you'll be buying another phone in 2-years and installing apps on it is a minefield just waiting for you to make the wrong step, and Google is tracking your every move which it puts up for sale to the highest bidder.
Whether or not the Play Store is filled with “junk” is irrelevant. BTW there have also been apps in the App Store which were removed AFTER it was discovered they track users activities.
If you only only want to install apps from Apple’s store, and benefit from the control and comfort that gives you that’s fine, it’s your choice. Not allowing apps to be installed from other stores, that is limiting consumer choice and could be a monopoly.
I think people are still confused why Apple is called a monopolist. Apple is not a monopolist from the point of view of the consumer. There are plenty of (awful) choices. But when you are developer and want to develop an application for the iOS platform you have no choice but go through the iOS App Store, this might be even good for consumers but it is a monopoly for developers. The same is also true for Android.
This is different on macOS, you have the Mac App Store but you also can distribute software for macOS outside of the Mac App Store, so the developer has a choice how to distribute their new software.
Anti-trust laws don't apply to "monopoly over developers" since you can always develop for another platform.
There has to be a system of checks and balances. The idea that Apple can do whatever it wants with its own platform isn’t good enough. That is just a copout and a way to circumvent fairness, openness, and possibly even the law.
If you want to have a platform and pretend to make it available to everyone, it has to actually be available to everyone, without various anti competitive practices that prevent any one particular company or group or political ideology from exposure. Let the market handle it, not the whims of a few people in Cupertino.
Clearly there's an issue if Apple lets an app be developed and used for several years, and then disallows it when they make their own version. If Apple wants to be both a major platform owner and a participant, they should follow some basic rules about "platform neutrality". It's true Apple isn't technically a monopoly, but they do have a 45% market share of smartphones in the US, and an effective monopoly on the high end of the market.
I personally find some Apple policies obnoxious: ones that discourage big media companies from selling directly on iOS. If a media company is big enough and popular enough that having their stuff helps sell iPhones, Apple shouldn't be taking a large cut. Not being able to buy digital media in the Kindle app or the Netflix app sucks.
There is no such thing as "platform neutrality", unless you mean anything goes like the Google Play store which is full of garbage and malware. the Apple App Store is a product itself, a product that iOS users buy into when they adapt the platform. I want someone to vet the Apps, that's why I buy iOS.
The difference is that Apple owns the store. If you owned a store, should anyone be able to sell whatever they want in it? Is controlling what is sold in your store a "monopoly"? As the owner, if you want to sell your homemade items next to other products made by others, don't you have that right?
How can something that is exactly the same be different? I already said the example of McDonalds restricting what was for sale in their stores is not a monopoly. Neither is Apple deciding what should be included in the store a monopoly. Apple only allowing apps from the official store to be installed or abusing their position, these actions are potentially monopolistic.
I buy Apple products because I like Apple's level of control. I'm not always please, but I only need to look over at the Android Play store to see what I don't want. The Play store is infested with fake apps, malware and just plain junk. Android itself is rarely supported for more than 2 years with updates. Buying an Android phone means you'll be buying another phone in 2-years and installing apps on it is a minefield just waiting for you to make the wrong step, and Google is tracking your every move which it puts up for sale to the highest bidder.
Whether or not the Play Store is filled with “junk” is irrelevant. BTW there have also been apps in the App Store which were removed AFTER it was discovered they track users activities.
If you only only want to install apps from Apple’s store, and benefit from the control and comfort that gives you that’s fine, it’s your choice. Not allowing apps to be installed from other stores, that is limiting consumer choice and could be a monopoly.
It's simply not a monopoly because you can always choose another smartphone or tablet platform. It's that simple. You're only locked in, if you choose to be.
It's simply not a monopoly because you can always choose another smartphone or tablet platform. It's that simple. You're only locked in, if you choose to be.
Same as the phone companies weren’t a monopoly because you could always write a letter? 🤦♂️
It sounds like they were using undocumented "bypass" methods to access the data they needed for their app to function as designed, and if so, that is a violation of the rules. I personally don't like the idea of a third-party app modifying the setup of my system. I don't trust that. It's exactly why I don't use Android. I want any system modifications to be vetted by Apple and passed through public (to developer) APIs.
Their app "hid" all installed browsers? Where did they go? How did they get hidden? Sorry, that type of functionality does not belong in a third-party app. What happens if I uninstalled their app? How would I get the browser apps to re-appear again? Messy.
They didn’t by-pass anything. You can use MDM profiles to restrict access to internal apps or installed apps based on age-restriction settings.
In the mid-1990s Microsoft argued that Windows wasn’t a monopoly because MacOS 7 and Linux, as well as random Unix flavors meant there was competition, even though Windows market share was above 85% of the overall market.
It’s amusing to me that anyone who argues that iOS’ worldwide minority market share means Apple was a monopolist that needed to be sued. It’s bizarre and arbitrary, and solves what problem, exactly?
Comments
It isn’t an example of a monopoly. Simple enough an explanation for you?
Many examples of this very thing have been reported where Apple have copied app functionality and then removed apps for the store for violating the terms as “duplicating existing features” or apps have been removed just before new versions of iOS were released which contain the same functionality.
When did Apple “pretend” to make their platform available to everyone?
It’s only ever been on Apple devices - you have to buy an Apple device to use their platforms. And developers have to pay to sign up to Apple’s iOS Developer Program (and be granted membership) to get their software on those devices. That developer agreement is very specific about what they can a can’t do. Remember, the first year of the platforms existence was without 3rd party development, so it was a completely closed system, not much different than the iPod at the time. (And remember Apple actually invited certain developers to write games for the iPod - no one complained then about being closed and unfair.)
The whims of a few people in Cupertino!?
It’s those few people who decide whether they’re going to continue to spend billions and billions of dollars every year on R&D to keep those devices and that platform on the market! When you make a product you’re actually allowed to put it on the market as-is and let people decide whether they want to buy it or not. If they don’t agree with your business model or “ideaology”, they don’t have to buy your product or support your cause or use your service. That’s the free market... The free market should not decide what you make - it should only decide whether it’ll be successful or not. Then it’s up to that company to decide to make changes or go out of business.
Kaspersky wants access to the underlying OS, because that’s the only way their software can work. If your software doesn’t or can’t run on the platform because of the way the platform was designed, go find another platform to write software for. Would you play golf with a sledge hammer and then demand a more fair handicap? No you either find something else to play with (a golf club) or find a better place and use for that tool.
Pays to understand history.
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/serguei-beloussov#section-jobs
I buy Apple products because I like Apple's level of control. I'm not always please, but I only need to look over at the Android Play store to see what I don't want. The Play store is infested with fake apps, malware and just plain junk. Android itself is rarely supported for more than 2 years with updates. Buying an Android phone means you'll be buying another phone in 2-years and installing apps on it is a minefield just waiting for you to make the wrong step, and Google is tracking your every move which it puts up for sale to the highest bidder.
What law is that? Is there a law that forces a store owner to open their shelfs to anyone who want to sell a product?
Whether or not the Play Store is filled with “junk” is irrelevant. BTW there have also been apps in the App Store which were removed AFTER it was discovered they track users activities.
If you only only want to install apps from Apple’s store, and benefit from the control and comfort that gives you that’s fine, it’s your choice. Not allowing apps to be installed from other stores, that is limiting consumer choice and could be a monopoly.
Pot, meet Kettle.
It’s amusing to me that anyone who argues that iOS’ worldwide minority market share means Apple was a monopolist that needed to be sued. It’s bizarre and arbitrary, and solves what problem, exactly?