well, the thing is iOS itself isn't exactly a separate "thing" from these services. Also it wholly belongs to apple. You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms.
> You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms.
Sometimes I wonder what today’s computers would be like if Microsoft had exerted that level of control over DOS and Windows. Forget downloading some random exe you found online, only approved programs can be installed. Would there have been a booming software industry? Would there be so much malware? Would Microsoft have allowed things like the first web browsers?
No comment on the merits of operating systems as walled gardens. I just find it fascinating (and difficult) to imagine how things might have been.
I think a good comparison is to look at gaming. Most consoles have been walled gardens, ever since Nintendo revitalized the market. You end up with centralized power in the hand of a few big companies.
While in pc gaming, small indie studios can create entire new genres, like Factorio did, some which go on to grow and become giants themselves, like Minecraft.
Actually for a while Nintendo's control was circumvented by 3rd party publishers. Modern consoles have the DMCA to thank for maintaining an iron grip on who and what can run on the machines they sell.
I just think we should allow both options to compete and flourish. As you point out, each has their merits. If users end up preferring walled gardens and appliance-style devices, then shouldn't that be what they get?
The choice needs to be independent of the rest of the stack. If Apple wants to make an option where you can lock your iPhone to only installing apps from Apple's store and taking it out of that mode requires a factory reset, that's fine, because the customer has a choice.
Tying that choice to the choice of hardware and operating system is anti-competitive.
> Tying that choice to the choice of hardware and operating system is anti-competitive.
Except you've just invented that arbitrary distinction.
You can't seriously suggest that a Microwave, Treadmill, Car, Calculator, Thermometer etc would all need to invest the ridiculous amounts of time/money in supporting users wishing to install alternate operating systems.
One is not like the others. Modern mobile phones are pocket computers. And for some people the only device through which they can access more and more tools of modern life. Even the browser choice is severely limited.
Why is tying software to hardware anti-competitive? It's commonplace in literally everywhere, from washing machines to televisions to game consoles to CNC machines to cars to tractors. An overwhelming majority of hardware is sold with software included, and is designed to work with that software alone. Why are we trying to force iPhones into a special, narrow category they are actively avoiding? Why do we need to make the distinction at all?
Having the choice is great. It’s nice to use walled gardens sometimes (I’m writing this on an iPad) and to have options like Linux for more control and some tinkering.
It just blows my mind a little when I imagine the walled garden approach being applied more broadly and earlier. E.g. if the creators of web browsers and search engines had all decided they want a cut of sales from websites. (I mean a cut of sales from organic search, not just ads. And all sales made using the browser.)
Those “what might have been” scenarios tend to make me less comfortable with my iPad and my Android phone. But I still have them because I like them.
Interesting point. Comments elsewhere in the thread mention console gaming. That seems like another good argument for closed ecosystems being able to support a big software industry.
> You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms.
That's one perspective. However I would argue that Apple is big enough, and the number of alternative platforms is small enough, that it is in the Public Interest that Apple be required by the government (aka, Us, collectively), to play by a different set of rules, rules that are decided by you know, Democracy, rather than by fiat.
Yep, apple and google are basically a duopoly, and if you want a "normal smartphone" (basically a device, where you can get apps for your online banking, mainstream games and other content, etc.), there are basically no real alternatives.
If you think that there's enough demand for such a device to justify the expense in developing it, you should have no problems attracting investment to build it, don't you think?
Unfortunately iOS and Android have incredible lock in in addition to more than a decade head start. Just like Oracle is able to continue making $40 billion a year even though their product is ass.
That can be rephrased as "Oracle is continuing to see a return on its investment and innovation in RDBMS from the 80's into the 2000s". Why is this a bad thing?
No, I'm sayin that even though it's not a monopoly, but a duopoly, they should be regulated as a monopoly, because there are no real alternatives, and the barrier to entry is really high.
That depends on how you define the term. If you're suggesting things are less than optimal, I'm perfectly glad to agree with you. If you're suggesting we should use the force of regulation to attempt to optimize them, you've lost me.
Who is being hurt here? Users are clearly flocking to this platform because it does what they want. Who cares that app developers are unhappy? There are lots and lots of smartphone manufacturers. It's a thriving market. Most non-technical folks don't perceive the device and the OS as separate things.
If any company wants to disrupt the market, much like Apple itself did with the iPhone, there is literally nothing stopping them.
Edit:
> rules that are decided by you know, Democracy
At what point does democracy overreach? Is there one? Isn't it "democracy in defense of liberty"?
If we are sure people like so much apple services and integration, should be no problem at all to have alternatives not even directly managed by apple (so that it won't cost anything to apple to support it, except for opening some "store api"), still most users would keep using only the integrated apple services...
The point here is that Apple itself should be able to choose when and how and to whom it open the Apple Store. It should not be compelled to do so by anyone but its own directors and shareholders. If someone wants to sell phones that don't have this limitation, they are free to seek investment and build them.
It's not reasonable to expect other app stores to build their own mobile operating systems, which is why there is momentum among lawmakers in the U.S. to pass a bill that protects the right of users to use alternative app stores and sideload apps.[1] It is unjust for Apple to use its market power in the U.S. smartphone industry (57% market share in Q4 2021)[2] to force users and developers to endure the effects of a 15-30% fee (offset by a 17.6-42.9% price increase) on the majority of revenue generated by app developers, a fee that would not survive a market where multiple app stores were able to compete for iOS users.
Apple's market share is different in the Netherlands, but strong regulations in one major market are all it takes to punch a hole in Apple's monopoly/duopoly position.
I don't think it's reasonable for U.S. lawmakers to have an opinion on what Apple's competition should or should not be expected to do in order to compete with Apple. As I've said previously, if Apple was able to build it's own phone and OS in order to compete with RIM, and Google built its own phone and OS to compete with Apple, there's no reason why sufficient market pressure wouldn't attract the investment required to do it again. Regulation is simply forcing the situation when this pressure doesn't seem to exist. If users cared that much, they would buy Android. They don't. And since they don't, it's completely unjust for their representatives to apply force.
U.S. lawmakers are elected by U.S. citizens to represent their interests, which are not necessarily aligned with Apple's interests. In the case of Apple abusing its monopoly/duopoly power to extract higher fees from developers that are ultimately paid by users, these interests are not aligned. Lawmakers in any country have an obligation to introduce measures that prevent private companies from denying people the option of taking actions (such as sideloading) that would serve their interests, even if they would be counter to Apple's interests.
Monopolies and uncompetitive markets (such as the mobile app store duopoly in many regions) result in deadweight loss,* which hinders the growth of the economy at large. Lawmakers in any country would do well to increase their country's economic efficiency by limiting the ability of companies with high market power to distort the market. Uncompetitive markets are not free markets.
Is there any action taken by U.S. lawmakers that you wouldn't consider an overreach? Apple is also a U.S. company composed of U.S. citizens who should be at liberty to make and sell whatever devices they see fit. U.S. lawmakers should act primarily in defence of that liberty.
> If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life. -John Sherman
I hardly see how Apple, by taking 30% of revenue from substantially games, is king over the production or sale of any of the necessaries of life.
Apple is just one company among many in the U.S., and there is no legitimate reason for lawmakers anywhere to prioritize Apple's ability to restrict other people's liberties to the detriment of everyone else's liberties, especially liberties that concern everyone else's own property (such as sideloading). Apple will still be able to make and sell whatever devices they see fit, that ability is not in question.
The Commerce Clause* of the U.S. constitution empowers lawmakers to regulate interstate commerce. This clause has enabled the passage of antitrust laws in the U.S., including the Sherman Antitrust Act and hopefully the upcoming Open App Markets Act.
First is the Apple Store, and you are correct you have no right to have your application on it.
Second is the hardware device I paid money for and exists in my pocket. There is no reasonable right that Apple says "Only we can put a program on it, and you will have no ability to run your own programs on it"
We live in a world where hardware makers of all kinds think we own them a permanent rent. It is a poor and expensive path to let them continue.
You can indeed do whatever you want with your iPhone. You can throw it in a blender if it pleases you. That doesn't mean Apple is obligated to make it easy for you. Apple has sold you a device with a given hardware/software configuration, just like Samsung when they sell you a washing machine. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.
Users have no choice, the market is a duopoly, and Android app store has all the same problems (because it's a duopoly). You can't feasibly escape platform tax on mobile.
They make it sufficiently arduous to do otherwise that the bar is higher than what ordinary people can reach. The proof that this is not the case will be when a single store has less than half of the Android app market.
With Android, you can at least enable "Install [insecure] apps from 3. parties" or the like. You can then install whatever you like. Just like on most computers. Remember to disable the option after install .
why not exactly? As long as consumers are getting good devices and good competition (which they are), then what's the problem? It's not like the door is closed to innovation here, if any company can disrupt the smartphone market then the takings are all theirs. This is literally what Apple did with the original iPhone. Have you heard of Blackberry recently? I don't see that the incumbents are preventing this in any meaningful way, in the same way that RIM wasn't. Furthermore there are way more than two players in the smartphone game.
There's no competition, which competition exactly? The only tariff change Apple ever done in 10 years was due ... to a threat of an anti-trust lawsuit, you can't make this up. Even Apple basically admits indirectly the lack of competition. You only have two companies, with very similar rules and behaviour, there's no market anymore.
Don't get my comment wrong, I'd say the exact same thing about Google. It's a duopoly without any competition whatsoever.
> if any company can disrupt the smartphone market then the takings are all theirs
I don't think that's possible, even Microsoft failed at it with their massive funding.
https://www.gsmarena.com/makers.php3 loads of mobile phone companies, lots of healthy competition. Non-technical consumers don't perceive the device and the OS as separate things.
Right, but Apple is a mobile phone company, not a mobile app company. iOS app companies exist entirely at the pleasure of Apple, just like companies who depend on the Twitter API.
I disagree with that, Apple is a mobile app company and there's only two in the world.
Twitter as big as it is, is just a website across millions of others. In the mobile app market there is exactly two companies, Apple and Google, that's it.
Does Oppo or Samsung has any power when publishing an app? No? Then they are not part of this market.
Of course, these are not the bread and butter products.
I find it a bit pointless to separate their hardware and software. I know few people who run Windows or Linux on their Apple hardware. For me, Apple is primarily a products company that excels in fusing hardware and software together. They are increasingly expanding into services, too.
Isn't that the whole point? They can only make that money because they build the phones to begin with. They also invested in building the entire platform, literally from scratch. Isn't this just a return on their investment? Aren't they perfectly entitled to it? Why can't phones be loss leaders into mobile app ecosystems, just like razors are loss leaders into razor blades?
Up to a point, no. Common Carrier laws have been around for a long time and had demonstrable benefits. Net neutrality means phone companies can't use their infrastructure however they like. AT&T wanted to just sit on their patent for the transistor but was pushed by the government into to licensing it to Motorola, TI, etc. There's no reason why similar regulations couldn't be applied to mobile app platforms.
Common Carrier laws exist to ensure that infrastructure that occupies one physical location is shared. If AT&T had sat on the transistor patent, then Telefunken would have invented the transistron a whole two years later, and that's what we'd be calling the switches in our computers. Even failing that, delaying the information age by the expiry time of a patent doesn't seem like a big deal when you look at the big picture.
App developers shouldn't be beholden to using Apple's payment processing if they don't want to use it. Along that same line of logic, forcing developers to go through Apple for first-party distribution gives them a defacto monopoly over the iPhone. Apple could charge 85% overhead and there would be nothing developers could do about it.
The only fair resolution here is to force Apple to compete with other storefronts to prove that the value they provide is competitive. Apple could resolve this issue in a number of ways, but they've only chose to make the problem worse; that's why 34 states have come forward voicing their concern[0], and why EU regulators have been stepping in to block Apple's service expansions. They're the largest company in the world, and they deserve the most regulatory scrutiny for it; anything else is a failure of democracy and capitalism.
> monopoly over the iPhone
> Apple could charge 85% overhead and there would be nothing developers could do about it.
That's exactly right! Then fewer and poorer apps would be built on iOS, and users would notice, and they would migrate to other platforms. This has happened plenty of times before. Yes, Apple has a monopoly over the iPhone - it's an Apple product. Just like Sony have a monopoly over the PS5, and Samsung has a monopoly over the WF45R6300AV Front Load Washing Machine.
The only fair resolution would be to allow Apple to do whatever it wants with Apple devices. If everyone at Apple collectively lost their minds tomorrow, they would have every right to pull all apps from the App Store completely. They could shut down the platform. It's literally theirs in every sense of the word. They built it. They own it. They operate it. Just because people are concerned doesn't make socializing iPhones or the App Store in any way reasonable.
> That's exactly right! Then fewer and poorer apps would be built on iOS, and users would notice, and they would migrate to other platforms.
You're admitting yourself that there's not much value provided by the appstore to developers and they only use it because they have not choice (and I do agree with that being a developer myself)
It's called market abuse. Other companies have been broken before for abuse, that won't be the first one.
Apple could decided third party apps aren't allowed and then developers make 0%. It's their platform to decided what to do with. If they think 15/30% works well, then so be it.
There's quite a few ways to slice data, but profit would likely be better than revenue.
Apple does not make 30% profit off of total iPhone revenue, as they do still have to pay for development, infrastructure, and supporting staff.
They have a historical 38% margin on hardware, and just reported a 70% margin on first-party services.
The stores (iTunes Store, App Store, Books) may very well be their lowest margin divisions. Which would make sense, since they are selling other people's products.
Apple is 100% a mobile app company. They guard all the doors, they hold all the keys to the hardware device. Thereby they dictate what you can run on your hardware that you paid for after the sale.
> they dictate what you can run on your hardware that you paid for after the sale.
You bought the hardware from Apple knowing exactly what restrictions they place on the hardware. You were knowledgeable about it and still decided to purchase the hardware.
You can develop apps all you want, but Apple can break them anytime with updates. iOS and macOS are marketed and positioned by Apple differently. One is an open platform, one isn't. This is and should continue to be at Apple's sole discretion. If they choose to update macOS to be a closed platform, they certainly have the right to do so, don't they?
Actually, starting out closed and going more open is legal, whereas starting open and going completely closed would get slapped for anticompetitive. (No, requiring "notarization" does not cross the line for becoming closed and anticompetitive.)
