I don't think things are as clear cut as you make them out to be.
Apple says nobody can run apps on their phone without handing them a 30% cut. No side-loading, no other stores, nothing. There is very obviously a market for apps that Apple controls completely. Just because there are other app stores for other phones does not mean Apple doesn't have control over the entire market for iPhone apps. Markets can be narrowly defined in anti-trust law. Apple is fleecing iPhone users for that 30%.
I don't think there's a good parallel case for this. DRM'd Keurig cups are the closest thing I could think of, but that never went to court that I know of. The case will be interesting: can you create a secondary market that you exert total control over? Can I bar anyone else from selling apps for my phone?
Personally, I don't think Apple should be able to do what they are doing and I hope they lose. It would be a win for consumer rights and free market principles.
>Apple says nobody can run apps on their phone without handing them a 30% cut.
False. You can pay for an app/service via the internet (side-pay). The app can be free on the app store. This is what Netflix does. Is it a bit of a hassle? Sure. This is the only part that has an optics problem even though it probably meets any legal thresholds. I do think Apple will get some pressure to make this process easier and that change will happen. Once that is done, there will be even less of an argument here.
From the consumer perspective, if one doesn't like the app store, buy a different brand of phone. There is no monopoly here from a legal or functional perspective.
Has Apple's so called monopoly reduced consumer app selection or pricing? Absolutely not. High quality software has never been more affordable and never has the selection been so incredible. It will be rather easy for Apple to argue that the app store is a net positive for consumers.
For the vast number of non HN users, the app store is a huge win. The whole morass of app selection, installation, update, and developer trust has been solved by the app store. If you are looking for harm to anyone other than the minuscule number of users that care about side loading, it just isn't there. Has everyone forgotten what software purchase, installation, and maintenance looked like a decade ago? What a mess. Fleecing is not the right word for something that has made consumers lives simpler in so many ways.
Some readers of HN might not like Apple's approach, but that doesn't make it illegal. There is just not a way to show substantial (any) harm to consumers. As I said, I think they will probably improve the side-pay options to improve their PR optics and that will be end of it.
> From the consumer perspective, if one doesn't like the app store, buy a different brand of phone. There is no monopoly here from a legal or functional perspective.
That is not how monopolies are defined. Apple says all apps for the iPhone must be signed by them and they must collect 30% of sales and in-app-purchases. The fact that they run an "App Store" means there is a market for iPhone apps. They control the market for iPhone apps. I don't know how to make that any clearer. The fact that Android exists does not change anything about the market for iPhone apps.
However, side-pay will be a very interesting defense. I haven't really considered that enough to speak on it.
I understand that Apple defines the narrow market for iPhone apps. That doesn't mean anything illegal is happening. Antitrust law doesn't say that the existence of a monopoly is illegal. There has to be harm, or exploitation, or price fixing, etc., for the courts to take action. A monopoly may just be the result of great execution by a company and it may not be in violation of any antitrust laws. Again, controlling a particular market may or may not be illegal.
Also, while it is true that Apple is controlling the marketplace for iOS apps, it does not control the market for smart phone apps in general. There is a good chance that that is sufficient for the courts to find no monopoly. As many of others have pointed out, there are many, many examples of narrowly defined monopolies. With a different definition, there is no monopoly.
Of course, none of us know what the courts and I get your concern. My point is that the simple control of a marketplace (created by Apple) for a specific product is not a sufficient condition for court action. The benefits to consumers could easily outweigh any concerns about control. Time (years) will tell.
Here is an interesting essay on press (public) perception of monopolies vs antitrust laws:
The judge essentially paused the case for four years while he ruled on a motion (which is ridiculous) so it's been quite slow. But I'm still watching it...
> Markets can be narrowly defined in anti-trust law
I doubt one has ever been defined as narrowly as a single product. The differences between an iPhone and an Android phone are functionally so minimal as to be irrelevant.
>I doubt one has ever been defined as narrowly as a single product.
Actually, QCOM's antitrust case is exactly that: QCOM's dominance in one or two particular markets (or product), in this case, the CDMA and "premium" (aka, LTE) modems.
The market is LTE modems, not Qualcomm LTE modems.
If you define the market to be a single company’s offerings, when there are other companies that make similar products (Android and the Android App Store) then the concept of monopoly has become a tautology.
The problem some people are having goes back to the concept of the walled garden in the first place and general purpose compute devices.
Apple does not have a responsibility to provide general purpose computing smartphones that can run any software you want. If Congress wants to pass a law saying that they do, then fine, but it seems quite to stretch to claim that anti-trust law is designed for that.
No, netflix isn't side loading apps. They are asking you sign up for the service on their site, not through the app to avoid having to pay Apple the 30%. A user still must get the app through the app store. There is no way to get an app on the phone that is not signed by apple..
You can now get developer certificates/provisioning profiles without paying the $100 you used to, just by having an Apple ID. You can replace the signature of an app given to you in binary form or build one given to you in source form via Xcode, which is also free.
Yes. My point was that they are exhibiting the same type of behaviour that they're accusing Qualcomm of, and that's why I said that's the pot calling the kettle black; they are more than happy to embrace the same self serving behaviour when it serves them.
The app store paid out $34bn to devs last year, so a very simple and probably naive calculation of 34/.7*.3 tells me they pocketed around ~$14.5bn in revenue from a total of $48.5bn. (source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/developer-apos-34-billion-ear... )
That really ought to be big enough a pot to warrant my drawing the parallel.
You realize those “parental control apps” gave a third party complete access to your child’s phone and were able to intercept all of your cbild’s communication.
Do you think parents were aware of that? Are you okay with that? If you want to control your child’s phone, you are free to use MDM software where you control provisioning and the profiles.
