Microsoft went from open options to package deals with no options. iOS (and vendored Android) started out with nothing, then added a store. There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario.
The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either.
While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".
> There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario.
While not iOS, there was a discussion last week on how MacOS has made things worse for independent developers, and is laying the groundwork to continue restricting un-notarized code.
From our perspective: yes. But legally and from the perspective or the mass-marketed users there really isn't much for them to think about or consider in terms of flexibility of application installation. (freedom is such a vague term to describe platform access - are you really free if you don't harvest your self-grown silicon chrystals, diffuse the chips yourself, write the firmware and OS yourself etc?)
Ironically, we could turn this on it's head: when the iPad came out people commented humorously "nobody asked for this" but apparently it was a device we didn't know we could use or enjoy. The same could be said for personal platform access. But what shape or benefit (and downsides) it gives to the mass market user eludes me so far.
I am not sure why this fallacy continues to be repeated in every Apple thread. Apple currently has 46% US market share [1] and 14% global market share [2]. This is far from monopoly power.
By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3]
First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones. It's well known that iPhone users tend to hold on to their phone for longer before upgrading compared to Android users, who often switch phones much earlier. You need to look at operating-system market share based on active users(e.g. web tracking), not "who upgraded their phone this quarter". In that regard, Apple has over 56% market share in the US and over 24% market share globally [1].
Secondly, the fallacy here is that people, like yourself, keep conflating the smartphone manufacturing or operating system markets with the individual software markets that developed around each platform. Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other. That software is what makes the platforms themselves competitive between each other, yes, but the actual software industry that's dependent on them is not competitive across those platforms. They are competing with apps within their particular platform, including the purveyors they have to go through (e.g. Apple and Google). You wouldn't say that the Bear notes app on iOS is competing with the Scarlet Notes app on Android because they're in different markets. Instead, Bear is competing with Apple Notes. Even if we are to go by your 14%, that's 14% of 3.5 billion people. IMO, that's such a large amount that it should be considered it's own market, but that has to be determined by a court.
No one is arguing "monopoly" of mobile smartphones here. They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution. The Microsoft case wasn't in relation to other web browser developers, but of other operating systems and of manufacturers because they leveraged their market share to illegally maintain their monopoly in that regard. Their monopoly was their monopoly of the Windows operating system, not the Internet Explorer web browser. What's being argued here is that Apple is leveraging their power, or distribution monopoly, over the entire iOS software market, not "smartphone" software in general, to gatekeep competition of software and software distribution while also profiting from that gatekeeping.
This is going to come down to how a court interprets this because antitrust isn't as cut and dry as other areas of law, especially now that individual markets are not so easily distinguishable in the current tech world.
> First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones.
That's fair, however I don't believe web usage is the correct metric to use either. In any case the numbers are still a far cry from the 95% Microsoft held during their antitrust case.
> Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other.
By that logic Nintendo games don't "compete" with Xbox or Playstation games. I disagree with this narrowly defined view of the market in which Nintendo games, Xbox games, and Playstation games are viewed as competing in three separate markets, instead of competing in the overall video game market.
> They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution.
I disagree that this is a valid antitrust market and I think Epic is going to have a hard time convincing a court to accept this narrow market definition. US courts generally frown upon treating aftermarkets of a single brand's product as a valid antitrust market unless specific circumstances are met.
Those circumstances usually involve situations where the consumer lacks information about aftermarket restrictions or policies when the original product is purchased. In this case, iPhone customers know when they buy an iPhone that they will only be able to install apps via the App Store. If they are unhappy with this limitation they have an option of buying a different phone without such limitations. If they decide to go ahead and buy anyway, they did so knowingly, therefore antitrust liability is not likely in those circumstances.
> This is going to come down to how a court interprets this
I think many people are going to be disappointed by this. Aftermarket scenarios are not uncommon in antitrust law and the existing precedent is not in Epic's favor.
The real fallacy here is attempting to frame 'monopoly' by its dictionary definition, and not the definition used by the government[1]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
The definition you've linked does not really contradict my point considering it says that courts typically do not find monopoly power below 50% market share.
Market share does not actually determine monopoly. You can have 100% market share and not be a monopoly. Conversely, you can have 50% market share and be a monopoly.
Apple has more active users in the US than Android btw.
The fallacy being repeated is actually people defining monopolies by referencing market share.
In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred,"(19) they have demanded a dominant market share. Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not."(20) The Supreme Court quickly endorsed Judge Hand's approach in American Tobacco Co. v. United States.(21)
Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)
It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)
Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)
Unless you believe a market that includes nearly the entire population of the United States to be "typical", are we not then in agreement that Apple can still be found to be a monopoly, according to the excerpt you just posted?
The relevant geographic market for this court case will be the entire United States, yes. It is possible, but rather unlikely given existing historical precedent, that Apple's current US market share will be considered a monopoly.
Are monopolies strictly and solely defined by market share and not power and influence on the market in addition to abuses done through that power and influence? Defining monopolies only by market shares seems to be an outdated view. Things are different now. Even with that definition though, there is definitely a duopoly.
Strictly speaking, no. Monopoly power has been defined by the Supreme Court as the "power to control prices and exclude competition" and it is not based on a specific market share threshold. However, courts tend to start by examining market share in determining how much power a company has in a given market, and (as I posted in a sibling comment) they typically do not find monopoly power when a company has less than 50% of the market.
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now, do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a decade ago when having a half decent working app almost guaranteed you revenue.
You can't uninstall Safari from iOS. In fact you can't even browse the web without it as Apple prohibits any other browsing engine (Chrome, FF, etc, are using WKWebView).
I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and users".
I don't know of any consumer company that has taken privacy and security more seriously than Apple.
They led the way on iOS with Sandboxing, Secure Enclave, forcing HTTPS, on-device ML, on-use permissions model, fingerprinting prevention. And TouchID/FaceID both were popularised on iOS and made simple and reliable enough to be used by tens of millions.
By disallowing dynamic code execution, Apple does disallow other browsing engines. It does not matter what language Apple uses to disallow other browsing engines, since the effect is the same.
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
How many HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript rendering engines have been available on iOS compared to Android?! Has Gecko or Presto ever been available on iOS? What is the ONLY platform in wide use today that does not support Gecko or Blink?
Apple's iOS is by far worse than the Microsoft with Windows.
>What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
There was never any limit on installing software. Any Windows user could have easily installed Netscape.
Now, if we want to compare actual complaints, I recall that the idea that MS used private APIs to get Word a leg up was considered outrageous. These days, Apple uses private APIs to help Apple Music, and not a peep (well, until the EU will smack them down).
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
Did I read this right? My understanding was that Microsoft was penalized for bundling Windows with IE. Windows never forbade users from installing other web browsers.
Apple situation today would be more like if Windows did not allow users to install word processors other than Office, didn't allow browsers other than IE, etc.
Very good point and my example was not quite right. Although Apple’s market share is nothing even close to what MSFT had. It would be very difficult to prove in court that Apple is flexing market power when (a) they apply the same cut across the board, (b) competition charges the same amount, and more importantly (c) they have not changed it since inception. I think lawsuits are only possible once Apple crosses 50% market share which I don’t see happening.
Competing browsers saw their traffic increase,[16] suggesting that these smaller competing developers were gaining users. However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
If that were the case, you would have seen Chrome’s market share increase faster in the EU than the US where there was no browser ballot. That wasn’t the case.
The premise of browser lock-in was that Microsoft was tying IE to Windows and then encouraging the creation of websites that required IE. If Europe broke the lock on global websites that required IE, that would enable people all over the world to switch to other browsers at the same time.
What do you think had more to do with IE losing market share worldwide “browser choice” or the most popular website in the world hawking their browser on the front page and MS losing mobile - you can’t very well be IE only and want to work on mobile browsers.
What requires it to be a larger effect? Your claim was that "browser choice" was ineffective because non-Microsoft browsers lost share, but that's nonsense. Microsoft browsers lost share. That there were multiple reasons for this is no evidence that browser choice didn't work. The thing it was supposed to do happened.
I’m quoting from *your source”. How would Microsoft not lose share if they weren’t on mobile? We have a control group - the US. Where there was no browser choice forced on Microsoft, they lost share faster and where Google was more popular.
Losing share faster rather than at the same rate is evidence that there are independent factors involved, which means that it isn't a valid control group.
> hat MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps
This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store.
> about allowing third-party apps in the beginning.
No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s.
It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. If Microsoft had the control over Windows that Apple does over iOS, they never would have allowed web browsers (for "security", no doubt) and we might be in a Windows monoculture today.
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps.
Does Apple prohibiting apps from using any other payment processors than Apple's come close enough to equivalency to you? That's one of the key elements of the dispute here.
Your citation has nothing to do with Apple banning apps and the idea the article cites is as old as dirt and has been discussed since way before the App Store.
There is no copy cats rule. There is an existence proof that this isn’t true in every category where Apple bundles a first party app.
That is not what they are referring to. For some strange reason there is a myth that you can’t ship an app on iOS if Apple has a competing service. Even though there are all sorts of existence proofs that it isn’t truth.
Signal can't send SMS on iPhones (it can on Android). Firefox has to use Apple's browser engine. Just because they don't do it in 100% of cases doesn't mean they don't do it.
Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely.
And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
Signal doesn't auto-sign up kids for premium content. Firefox doesn't run local apps.
If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.
No but having an SMS API allows dodgy apps to signup kids for premium content. When dealing with security issues you don't just imagine the perfect case scenario.
And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
> No but having an SMS API allows dodgy apps to signup kids for premium content.
So reject the dodgy apps then. What justification is that for denying it to Signal? In particular, what justification is that for denying it to Signal but not iMessage?
> And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
Signal and WhatsApp on iPhones can't send SMS. Chrome on iPhones isn't Chrome, it's Safari with a Chrome logo.
> You don’t think it’s a security issue for apps to be able to intercept your text messages
Apps, like Signal, that you have given permission to intercept your text messages? Why would that be a security issue? You gave them permission to do it because that's what you wanted.
> Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access.
Also known as "private APIs" etc.
> Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
Why would that be unreasonable, if done at the request of the device owner?
When the effect of the "security restrictions" is in practice to ban the competing apps while Apple exempts its own apps from the security restrictions, it's the same thing.
How is Apple not going to “exempt” itself from having privileged access to its own operating system? Signal is not “banned” from the App Store neither is Chrome - they both exist on the App Store.
Signal is an app for sending text messages and Apple doesn't allow it to send SMS text messages. Example of why this is a security vulnerability rather than a security feature: Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others. Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted.
The "Chrome" in Apple's store is just a skin over Safari. It doesn't actually exist there, only something different with the same name.
Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others.
How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc?
Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted.
So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
> How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc?
It means you're using a different app for secure messaging and SMS. If they're the same app then it knows to not send SMS to the person you have encrypted messaging set up with.
It also requires you to use multiple messaging apps, which increases cognitive load and the potential for mistakes, because there is nothing available on iOS that can both send SMS and send secure messages to Android devices.
> So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
Smart people make mistakes all the time. Isn't that your whole thing about not giving the user full control over the device?
You mean like making a mistake and clicking “yes” and giving permission to all of your text messages to a third party that can then log it and use it to take over accounts?
How many people trusted the “no logging VPNs” before the ES hacks showed they were in fact logging everything?
Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a monopoly, as laws are technical documents. If you agree Apple is not a monopoly then the worst thing you can say is, "I don't think Apple is being very nice."
And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?
Laws are technical document, and as I keep saying, legally a company does not need to be a monopoly to get the law to interfere against it. IIRC, the test in the US is "market power" + "harm to customer welfare", and there's a good case to be made that Apple meets it.
Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.
The law (Sherman Act) does actually say that “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize ... any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” The test you mentioned is basically an attempt to explain the meaning of this contentious word “monopolize.”
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
The Sherman Act is not the only relevant law here; the Clayton Act is relevant as law. (And was passed because the Sherman Act was too narrow). You do not need to be a monopoly to violate the Clayton Act, and most antitrust legislation nowadays is I believe brought under that and not the Sherman Act.
In this case the Sherman Act is relevant because all of Epic's federal claims are brought under the Sherman Act. (There are some California specific claims too.)
However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which do not necessarily require monopoly power. (Section 1 has to deal with unreasonable restraints of trade, whereas Section 2 deals with monopolies.)
The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC became an open system, so they definitely had a market effect.
The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
IBM didn’t open up because of suit on mainframes. They really didn’t care about the personal computer market and just got open source parts and paid MS a little money for the operating system.
The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
IBM did wish to maintain control, that's why they copyrighted the BIOS. But when Compaq reversed engineer it, it was obvious that there was no way to sue without inviting more legal scrutiny.
My other point is that some Apple app store apps can use APIs that every other app would get banned for. People complained about that when it came MS; It's not better when Apple does it.
That also isn’t true. Compaq had to do a clean room implementation so it wouldn’t get sued. The anti-trust suit was dropped in 1983 - around the same time that Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS.
Epic specifically brought several Sherman Act section 2 claims against Apple. The first step of proving a section 2 claim is establishing monopoly power.
So even though there are some antitrust violations (e.g. price fixing or bid rigging) where monopoly power is indeed irrelevant, it is very specifically relevant in the context of Epic's lawsuit against Apple.
Very broadly speaking it's perfectly legal to have a monopoly on something, and Apple has a monopoly on the thing they created, and that's fine.
It's generally illegal to use a monopoly on one thing to acquire a monopoly on another thing when that harms society, and that is the claim here.
Microsoft alone created windows, that's fine. Microsoft used their monopoly on windows to gain monopolies on other pieces of software, and that was problematic.
1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line.
2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
Also have to mention apple is charging a fee way outside the norm for a payment processor at 30%.
Have to also remember to deploy to the app store and a lot of the development has to be done on a Mac. So it is really equivalent of saying you must buy the factory from us, only sell in our store, and only use our payment processor.
> Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store
Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
The typical store model also has the store owner selecting products, paying in advance to the suppliers, and assuming partial liability - especially over fakes. Comparing it to a mall makes more sense IMHO, given that it's the developer that initiates the transaction here, pays to the mall owner, and assumes all liability.
P.S. Quite a lot of products in I buy in $LOCALSTORE link to the manufacturer's web site, and more than a few manufacturers allow direct sales. No store here would imagine it could force the manufacturer to use only its preferred credit method in their web site.
How should Apple get paid for a free app that has it's own payment system? Apple created a phone, IDE, language and entire ecosystem and from day 1 has charged 30%. They have not increased that as their marketshare increased. Should Apple be forced to allow an app to be released free and then accept payments outside of Apple?
Oh, I don't know. They could ask the developer for a fee. How about that?
To answer your question, yes, Apple should be forced to allow other payment system. The current anti-competitive arrangement both disadvantages non-Apple payment systems, and prevents users from switching to Android if they wish (since subscriptions are managed by Apple, and it difficult to access that without an Apple device...).
Put Fortnite into a box and put it on the shelf at a store which will take 30% in margin on that sale (probably more). Should that store also be forced to allow buyers to purchase it off their store shelf through a payment to someone else? Of course not.
It's payment in-app that are the issue, not payments to the store. Apple played no role in generating these in-app payments, and shouldn't have the right to mandate use of its payment solution. If you bought Fortnite at a store, would the store get money over purchases made later inside the Fortnite application? Of course not.
Because their current behaviour is anti-competitive rent-seeking, and limits innovation.
Anti-competitive by mandating use of their products, rent seeking because 30% is absurd (but alas legal), and as one twitter thread pointed out, if the web hadn't already existed, no existing web browser could possibly have passed Apple's app store policies.
I guess I don't see them mandating the use of their products. You can have your app on iOS or not. I just don't see the moral issue here. They've never raised the prices and have had this price since they had 0 3rd party apps so I have a hard time seeing it as rent seeking. Do they make a lot of money? Yes, they do, but is that enough to force them not too? I'm just not convinced of that yet.
Apple are mandating the use of their Apple ID and Apple Payment System (aka products). The first might have a security rational, the second does not, yet devs must pay Apple's fees even if they are higher than alternatives[, a defacto price raise].
It used to be possible to get payments on iOS going without using Apple's payments, before Apple set their eyes upon that market.
Why shouldn't they? They got paid when the customer bought the phone. If the "free" app is handling payment processing and distribution itself, what is Apple doing that justifies receiving any money at all?
The ide, language, servers, and platform to support the app aren't worth anything? Really not trying to be dense here, I just don't see how this isn't just Epic thinking a price is too high and wanting to pay less.
I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. I agree that they could do that, but I don't see the reason to force them to. They created what they wanted because they didn't like the current offerings at the time–Epic or anyone else is free to do the same.
> I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things.
Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.
By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
> But you've arbitrarily defined what a market is.
It's not arbitrary. It's based on whether there are reasonable substitutes. Exxon is a reasonable substitute for Chevron when buying gasoline for your 2020 Ford F150, because you can use either one. Google Play is not a reasonable substitute for the Apple App Store when buying apps for your 2020 Apple iPhone, because you can't actually use it for that.
> By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
It has nothing to do with forcing them to do something. They just shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from producing an autopilot implementation for their cars. And what's so unreasonable about that? It's plainly anti-competitive.
Because Epic is happy with the console makers, but they're not happy with Apple.
The console makers actually actually do things for Fornite, other than offering a download. Sony sells like a Fornite + Playstation bundle, and do marketing with them.
It shows they have a majority share of the mobile OS market in the US; therefore, they can basically act like they have a monopoly in the US. Everyone else is a distant second, so they can monopolize or attempt to monopolize the mobile app market.
That's not how any of this works. Majority share is a lot of power, but the theory of how monopolies work doesn't support the idea that anyone with a majority of the market has monopoly power.
It's most definitely how this works. Monopoly power isn't some binary attribute. It's not like you flip a switch one day from not being a monopoly to suddenly becoming a monopoly. Monopoly power is accrued over time with increasing market share. Very few companies have the kind of market share we are talking about here with Apple and the US mobile OS market. Take for example, Walmart, who many people think of being gigantic in the retail sector in the US. They only account for 16% of US retail sales. If Apple only had 16% of the US mobile OS market there wouldn't even be a discussion about anti-trust laws and Apple wouldn't have just made this announcement -> https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=84w3e5bm
"The kind of common theme is the abuse of their market power to maintain their market dominance, to crush competitors, to exclude folks from their platform and to earn monopoly rents."
But that also applies to every single current game console and
almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from
smartwatches to home automation.
That doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. Apple has huge
competition on the mobile market. Windows Phone 8 only had
Microsoft's own app store, was that a monopoly with its <5%
market share? I think not.
> But that also applies to every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from smartwatches to home automation.
That sounds like an argument that "every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the law just because they chose to sue one that is.
Tim Sweeney has made some statements about this, to try and walk a line where, while the situation is equally true about game consoles, they shouldn't count/shouldn't be forced to be open because their platforms are less innately profitable. That is, consoles are sold at a loss and have a lot of R&D costs, and so they have more rights to maintain an exclusionary platform than Apple.
I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid destroying a relationship with strategically critical partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile. Trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Let's assume your pessimistic case is exactly right, so what? He's allowed to sue one person who is breaking the law while not suing another one. He's allowed to eat the console slice of cake and complain to the courts that the apple slice of cake had the wrong color icing even if they both have the wrong color icing.
He's also allowed to believe that there is a stronger case against Apple and sue them first, and then sue the other people later if he wins the first suit convincingly, which is what I personally suspect is going to happen.
Yeah, but I'd imagine if someone offered you to have Steam on ps5, you'd jump in instantly. At least I would. I'd even pay more for the nice compact hardware if it is currently subsidized.
Apple is a monopoly that controls what applications can run on iPhones. Being a monopoly is not illegal in the US. What is illegal is for a monopoly to engage in predatory practices, which Apple clearly does.
I was referring to the specific point that is mentioned in the article, that Apple demanded 30% from Fortnite sales that had nothing to do with being listed in the store. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Android is another phone platform with a larger market share. This is hardly a monopoly.
Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules.
I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user.
I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store.
I think that would ultimately be better for consumers.
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
You can install any other store on Android; you can enable installation from any source on Android; you don't even need to jailbreak to get this option on Android.
I don't know if you remember the 90s, but at the time MS was the ONLY monopoly in personal computing. Intel was the other big force, but even they had competition on AMD. All other companies had not even a slim of hope of controlling the ecosystem like MS had. Now we have Apple, but you still can buy Google devices and do whatever you want outside their walled garden.
I think its really important the narrative stays clear concerning this: Its never been about users having choice (because users do have choice): Its about Developers not having a choice.
Refusing to release an iOS app for your web application/game/etc is generally a death sentence, so much so that oftentimes you see new services release as "Get it on the iOS app store, Android coming soon."
Of course the argument for this is "why are iOS users more inclined to purchase games and IAPs compared to Android users?". I'm legitimately curious about this, but my first guess is these two factors:
A. iOS is generally more expensive and thus users are more likely to have disposable income
B. The IAP system means the only barrier to purchasing stuff on a completely new app is performing touch/face ID
Don't forget that Android has more than one store and depending on the company you buy your phone from it might even come with another store pre-installed, such as the Samsung store.
So comparing iOS store to only the play store will ignore a section of Android users.
I don't think this line of argument would fly, because developers have actually a choice in developing for Android. If they don't make as much money that is not Google or Apple's fault.
What I think is an argument against Apple is that users want to have access to apps that Apple doesn't want to release on its store. In that case, they may be forced to relax their rules on the Appstore.
> I don't think this line of argument would fly, because developers have actually a choice in developing for Android.
This is much like saying that having a monopoly on retail stores in California isn't a problem because producers can just sell their product in New York. Obviously that doesn't allow them to reach the same customers. They aren't alternatives to each other because you need both to reach your entire customer base. Compare to Walmart where if you don't sell through them, the exact same customers can easily walk across the street and buy your product at Target.
That's not the same. People living in California cannot relocate to NY just to use a different store. iPhone users can in fact buy an Android phone to escape Apple. I think this line of argument is very weak and will never succeed in an antitrust trial.
> People living in California cannot relocate to NY just to use a different store. iPhone users can in fact buy an Android phone to escape Apple.
In what sense can people in California not relocate to NY but people with iPhones can relocate to Android? In both cases moving is possible but the cost is far in excess of the cost of the typical product you'd buy in the store.
In the very definite sense that Android and iPhone are brands of mobile phones available everywhere in the US, which you can buy any minute you want. You literally just need to buy a new one. That's not the same for the place where you live.
Even "just buy a new one" is laying out hundreds of dollars, if not over a thousand, to buy a $1 app. But then you also have to re-buy all of your existing apps and learn a new operating system. There may be apps that only exist on one platform, or services like iCloud that you would have a cost to transition away from. You may have friends who use iMessage and can't convince them to switch to anything else. It may force you into relationships you don't want -- maybe you don't want to give Google all your data and regard that as a significant cost.
That's normal in the world of software. There are thousands of titles that are Windows only. To use them you need to buy a PC with a windows OS, even if the software you want to run is $1 or free. The same applies to macOS or even Linux.
Ultimately, this isn't about App Store revenue. Yes, iOS generates far more IAP revenue than Android, in general. But, does this apply to Fortnite (maybe), xCloud (no), Hey (no), and the many other apps which have been Banned By Apple?
I'm not talking about writing an application for iOS and Android, then selling it in the store. I do think that's a separate case.
I'm talking about, as the best examples, xCloud and Hey. Web services which need to offer a mobile experience. Microsoft will be fine without Apple, but Hey faced legitimate business issues when Apple kicked them out. These companies are uninterested in the App Store Economy: They just want distribution.
How were they a monopoly if Apple had their own OS? As did many others?
Microsoft got hit for antitrust because of bundled software. What Apple does is far worse imo, not just bundling software, but the control over the store/devices is nuts.
> Microsoft got hit for antitrust because of bundled software.
Not quite. Microsoft's antitrust violations involved coercing other companies to bundle IE with their products. In particular:
1. They forced OEMs to ship IE instead of Netscape as a condition of obtaining Windows OEM licenses.
2. They made deals with ISPs to ship IE instead of Netscape (for example on AOL CDs).
3. They threatened to pull Office for Mac if Apple shipped Netscape with Mac OS instead of IE.
The question of whether the sole act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was never decided by the appeals court. It was remanded back to the district court for additional proceedings which never happened as the lawsuit was eventually settled.
Apple had less than 5% of the desktop market. At some point in the 90s Apple was going bankrupt quickly! MS had to step in and invest in Apple so that it wouldn't close down leaving MS as the only company in the personal computer OS market.
Microsoft “invested” a token $250 million in Apple. The same quarter, Apple spent $100 million to buy PoweComputings Mac license. The $150 net did not save Apple. Apple lost far more money than that before it became profitable.
What MS did was promise to continue releasing both Office and IE for the Mac.
Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.
They effectively made it impossible to buy a computer without paying them. They profited even when they were not part of a transaction which killed BeOS and others.
The monopoly word gets thrown around a lot in this context. But it's not clear where the monopoly is, in a legal, anti-competitive sense. Can you define what Apple's market monopoly is?
