At some point the platform has to be considered common infrastructure, similar to power transmission lines, the railroad or the Windows OS. Just because you happened to build a successful platform should not imply that you can hold everyone hostage - that is why antitrust is a thing.
There are open platforms, and due to convenience of distribution developers have reluctantly chosen these platforms over open ones. Now while I am not defending Apple's position here, developers who have chosen to distribute only on such platforms for the past few decades are partly to blame too.
The success of Apple (etc.) are due to choices that developers have made, closing themselves in and then citing anti-trust when they themselves locked the doors and gave away the keys.
While this is even more true for consoles, the difference is in a specific purpose vs a general purpose.
General purpose platforms that become overly closed have roundly been rejected or been forced to open up: Carterfone, AOL, Windows, carrier locked phones, etc.. even iOS itself didn't allow apps at first and now does.
Closed platforms for a specific purpose like consoles, kindles, rokus, etc.. do a bit better because they are 1) more likely to have competitors, and 2) have more limited impact from being specific purpose platforms, though are still capable of maintaining monopolies/duopolies.
The phone market is a iOS/Android duopoly, and both are being forced to open up more. Hardly surprising.
Exactly. Developers loved the gravy train while it lasted. 30% cut for being put into the hands of millions of people instantly was pocket change in the 2010s. Now that the market is saturated and developers have tougher competition, they're turning on Apple. Take your money, smile that it happened, and go work on open platforms from now on.
What if the phone is in the hands of millions of people in the first place because it is full of apps? Didn’t the Mac cede it’s place in PC history because Windows had more software?
I am on board with the internet being common infrastructure, since you cannot own your own fibre cable that goes to the ISP (at least not easily and cheaply).
With hardware it is different. Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone. Nobody forced you to buy an Android, Windows, Nokia, whatever phone. Same with laptops. If you want an open platform, buy one. If you want an open OS, install one. Don't buy an iPhone, complain about the platform not being open enough for you, and then demand that all platforms be made common infrastructure so that you're absolved of making decisions about the hardware you use.
Internet Explorer was already ubiquitous at that point. The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. The iPhone become so widely used because of the popularity of the App Store. The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. It's only now that people are turning around and complaining that a platform that was never open to begin with, is not open enough.
Taking a 30% cut from app store sales isn't anti-competitive though. If anything, it allows other platforms to compete on price. Which is exactly what Android does. Developers can't whinge if people still buy iPhones despite the restrictions on what you can and can't do on it.
The Microsoft case is completely different, in that it favored IE over other browsers based on the APIs the software was allowed access to. Apple allows all apps to access the iOS APIs and uses those same APIs to develop its own apps. Taking a 30% cut of software that Apple distributes on your behalf might be steep, but is certainly not anti-competitive. If you think it costs too much, don't pay it! Nobody is forcing you to distribute software for the iPhone. If you're lamenting that people are stupid enough to buy hardware they don't have full control over, then that speaks more of human stupidity and the fact that convenience will always win.
> Taking a 30% cut from app store sales isn't anti-competitive though
That is not what the court case is asserting is anti-competitive.
The anti-competitive action is that Apple prevents competing app stores on the platform. Preventing competitors from competing is explicitly the definition of anti-competitive. High prices can be a consequence of anti-competitive behavior but is not really the main issue. The main issue has to do with.... reducing competition by stopping competitors, which Apple definitely does.
Apple doesn't even pretend to claim that it is not preventing competitors, honestly. The question is whether Apple is large enough that anti-competition laws apply to them. (Which they obviously are, given that they now have 52.4% of the phone duopoly, as of last month)
> it allows other platforms to compete on price
No, actually. Competing app stores cannot be put on the iPhone, due to Apple's actions. These competing app stores cannot compete for iPhone users.
> it favored IE
Apple favors its own app store, over competitors, in that it literally prevents other app stores from competing at all on the iPhone.
> Apple allows all apps
No, it does not allow other app stores, no.
> If you think it costs too much, don't pay it!
You should read the lawsuit. The anti-competitive behavior is not the price. This instead had to do with Apple preventing competing app stores.
Also, that is a bad argument, because "just dont use it" is not a valid defense when a company is engaging in anti-competitive practices.
> Nobody is forcing you to distribute software for the iPhone
Another bad argument. This would not at all be valid if Microsoft used it as an argument regarding software installed on the PC. That argument would be invalid, if microsoft prevented competitors from being installed on PC.
> If you're lamenting
No, I am saying that anti-competitive practices should be stopped.
