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.
