HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
If we were talking about Microsoft, the whole world would be up in arms calling it a monopoly. Since it is Apple, it's just a "closed system." 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Apple Says The App Store Is Not a Monopoly
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
The fact that they don't allow a choice is the problem. They are using their position as the dominant market force to exclude other competitors. This is the very definition of antitrust activities. If Microsoft announced tomorrow that only software purchased in the windows store would be permitted people would be screaming at the top of their lungs.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
Meanwhile MS MUST let others install other browsers and MUST present a browser lottery in Europe. But that's a monopoly and abuse just bundling a free product where as actually locking every app in your OS to a proprietary coding format and forcing people to go through an acceptance process is not.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 21,888
You're not getting the point here. This is more like Target putting up barriers in front of other stores to stop people from going inside.
Honestly, I probably wouldn't want to buy an app other than from the app store UNLESS it was known to be safe, or if it was directly from the creator -- for instance, getting Need for Speed from EA's "store" for a lesser price over the App Store's. Although, Apple product users don't even get the choice of installing something that isn't directly from the App Store. I've installed some software on my Samsung smart phone that was from a website. It's nice to have that ability.
If you break it down, it does sound like a monopoly though. What if Amazon decided you could only buy e-books for the Kindle from their site?
If you break it down, it does sound like a monopoly though. What if Amazon decided you could only buy e-books for the Kindle from their site?
ol1bit
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,246
Meh...They are a tad restrictive.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
I think a lot of the cases in recent years involving technology just need a standard or some laws. Someone needs to get up there and say, if you make any hardware device, anyone can do anything they want with it, to stop all this BS about locking phones, consoles etc.... And if you make any OS anyone can install any program they want on it from any source so long as it does not cause harm to others. IE and example of that might be hacking your phone so you could change your MEID/ESN and steal minutes / data from someone else. But beyond that so long as you don't cause harm to a network it should be fine.
We should think of apps kinda like electronic appliances in a house, imagine if you bought a house and someone said, sorry dude you bought a sears house and you can ONLY have sears approved appliances bought from sears in your house.
The world as a whole is essentially in need of a electronica hardware and software bill of rights.
We should think of apps kinda like electronic appliances in a house, imagine if you bought a house and someone said, sorry dude you bought a sears house and you can ONLY have sears approved appliances bought from sears in your house.
The world as a whole is essentially in need of a electronica hardware and software bill of rights.
Ocean
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,927
meh, it might somehow technically be a monopoly. but the apple iphone ios app store didnt exist prior to its invention, its really hard for me to see how the criminally intended downside of a monopoly exists with this. customers buy cutting edge things all the time, knowing that servicings and addons will have to come via the branded manufacturer.
ooh, maybe people will want new animated wallpapers on their TV sets!
TV manufacturer says ok, we will make a marketplace for that, artists can pick whatever price or even ad supported, but we get a flat cut for delivery, overhead, functionality.
okay, but if you do that, you will be a monopoly and hence, evil, and wrong.
basically, i think it is extremely stupid to have something called a monopoly when there wasnt demand for it before you created it. and this same issue is going to popup repeatedly in software and tech litigation until it is legally dealt with.
let the initial customers choose a manufacturer with more open system that allows you to put whatever program from the internet or keep the cpu overclocked cutting the battery life by half.on the phone that might need to call 911
or let the customers choose a manufacturer that says, these are the only programs you have the option to install, no animated wallpapers, no free programs from the open side of the internet, no porn, no operating system modifications.
there are advantages to a closed system, and the customer makes that choice when they buy the product.
ooh, maybe people will want new animated wallpapers on their TV sets!
TV manufacturer says ok, we will make a marketplace for that, artists can pick whatever price or even ad supported, but we get a flat cut for delivery, overhead, functionality.
okay, but if you do that, you will be a monopoly and hence, evil, and wrong.
basically, i think it is extremely stupid to have something called a monopoly when there wasnt demand for it before you created it. and this same issue is going to popup repeatedly in software and tech litigation until it is legally dealt with.
let the initial customers choose a manufacturer with more open system that allows you to put whatever program from the internet or keep the cpu overclocked cutting the battery life by half.on the phone that might need to call 911
or let the customers choose a manufacturer that says, these are the only programs you have the option to install, no animated wallpapers, no free programs from the open side of the internet, no porn, no operating system modifications.
there are advantages to a closed system, and the customer makes that choice when they buy the product.
Ocean
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,927
this is already the case, the issue is that the phone doesnt actually cost the $200 you are paying for it, it actually costs maybe $700, locking people into carriers is how they get their profit. or are you arguing that phones should stop being subsidized?
but what about the people who harm themselves? have you ever fixed a computer before?
maybe im a phone manufacturer that doesnt want to deal with the thousands of service calls from fucktards who just downloaded fast porn downloader 3000. because it was the number one antivirus on google search!
and then no one would buy this sears house. and the market solves the issue.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
If this suit were being brought by the app developers I would say it had more merit ... their argument that app pricing is affected by the Apple App Store is a non-starter since the developers set the prices, not the store ... the only affect that the 30% cut that Apple takes has had is that Amazon reduced their take to 30% (some estimates had it over 60% for e-books originally) ...
even if there were more than one store (like in the case of Android) you would still have the same pricing since the developer sets the price and not the store ... even if one store took a 20% cut instead of a 30% cut the developer would likely keep their price the same and just pocket the difference ... not sure what these folks hope to accomplish with this lawsuit
even if there were more than one store (like in the case of Android) you would still have the same pricing since the developer sets the price and not the store ... even if one store took a 20% cut instead of a 30% cut the developer would likely keep their price the same and just pocket the difference ... not sure what these folks hope to accomplish with this lawsuit
Worst. Analogy. Evar.
A better analogy would be Apple owning most of the roads in a major city, and requiring that all gas stations, restaurants, and the like be sold at Apple storefronts and forking over 30% of their income to Apple and preventing them from selling their goods directly to consumers.
Apple is using a dominant hardware market position to extract an exorbitant tax on developers and prevent them from selling to users outside Apple's storefront.
If Microsoft used its 90%+ marketshare of the desktop OS platform to restrict all developers to selling their software at shopmicrosoft.com at a 30% tax, there is no shred of doubt that anti-monopoly legislation would rightfully interfere with such a practice.
This is exactly what anti-trust laws are designed to prevent, and no it doesn't matter if such a practice exists as long as they don't hold a lion share of any market. When they get close though, it disrupts natural market forces that ensure fair competition that drive innovation and good prices for consumers. Its coined "The Curse of Bigness", and without such basic police measures capitalism fails to work properly.
Microsoft is a bit better in that it lowers the cut from 30% to 20% after $25,000 in sales. Crytek charges up to 30% for Cryengine 3 licensing I believe, and Valve probably charges a similar amount for Steam games
Crytek charges themselves for their engine 30% eh? Not like anyone else uses it.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
You are correct however, even if it was deemed a monopoly it wouldn't be considered illegal since they created the idea to begin with. You could call Intel a monopoly if AMD went out of business, but it wouldn't be their fault.
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
More like a bunch of people are going to buy and consecutively sell the damn house. And in this case we're talking a lot of houses like that. Consumer is fucked due sinister restrictive arrangements are made before the house was even built. It's sort of a scam imo. Stuff like that should be optional.
That is pure speculation and hyperbole. You are assuming that the percentage rates of share that apple gets is somehow egregious and felonious if not extortionary, which it isn't since the agreed parties have already accepted the contract to do business with apple to begin with. No one forced them to do it. There is no said rate of percentage share regulated by government to act upon apple with its voluntary developers.
No, that's not true considering there is an android alternative. It isn't apples fault that they created a system that allows developers to flock to them to use apples store front outlet to sell their products. Apple is like a giant shopping mall that lets all kinds of different stores (developers) set up shop with them and charges them 'rent' to be there. It's nothing more than that. However, they aren't the only shopping mall in town.
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
Wait a second. Your store analogy sucks.
Rent is a flat rate and has little or nothing to do with amount of stock being moved by the store. What Apple is doing is a form of tax.
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
What?! The fact of the matter is that if you want to download something on your Iphone... you require the app store for it. Right? How come it isn't a monopoly when you have no choice but to shop there?
This is like buying a Chevrolet and being obligated to only shop for parts, repairs and whatever you want to put into your car in Chevrolet dealers.
Yup, that right there is a monopoly; it would be kinda fair if Apple allowed people to shop elsewhere but claimed no responsability for any problem caused and denied warranty for such problems... but, as of now, the door is locked and thus why there is a clear monopoly.
Again, your comment makes no sense. If you want to sell software for Windows, Microsoft shop is only one of the gazillion options you have to do so. Cryengine 3? There are other engines and, steam? Do you require Steam for anything, from the developers side? Nope.
Move on.
It doesn't matter. The OS started with Windows, at least at the scale it is today, yet they can't enforce software to give them a share of their revenue.
Just because there are different systems doesn't mean that each system can do whatever they want. Apple app store is a monopoly, there is simply on denying that.
Totally missing the point.
Noone is arguing against Apple's right to operate their own store but it becomes an issue when they created a system that prevents iOS developers from selling their products anywhere else but through Apples store. That's when it becomes a monopoly.
That's a horrible analogy, its more like Target siging contracts with providers that they can't sell to any other company.
stealthy123
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,149
free market capitalism doesn't work.
Time to let the experiment end.
Time to let the experiment end.
This argument is ridiculous. If the App Store is a monopoly so is the PS3 network, XBOX Live, Steam, Origin, and the Barnes & Nobles store. Apple doesn't require that developers only sell their apps on iOS. Otherwise we wouldn't have Angry Birds on every service for every device. I'm not even sure that all iOS apps have to be sold on the iOS store. There are alternative ways to obtain iOS apps and anyone can sell codes to put into iTunes/App Store for the product.
LOL boiling frog much? That's exactly what Microsoft is moving toward, in baby steps so they take the hits gradually instead of all at once. You can see the trajectory. Look at Windows RT -- you cant run anything that hasnt been ordained and app-taxed by MS.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
PS3 and Xbox games are sold in a bunch of different places (GameStop/Amazon), Steam and Origin aren't the only exclusive game stores, and you could release a Windows game without either of them.
You can't buy boxed copies of phone junk, only buy it from a locked down single point store, and the Android versions of those applications wont work on that OS or phone. Those examples are not even remotely similar...
BloodDonor
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 315
If they used Hollywood accounting, they could... Dept X charges Dept Y for it... less tax to be paid
Difference though is that MS had a dominant position in the marketplace, and still do. Apple does not hold a dominant share of any sector of the total technology marketplace. The only market Apple dominates is that of people who wear beanies and tight pants. Now if the time came that 90% of phones were iOS powered, then governments would start stepping in. But that's just not going to happen.
And I'm not really a fan of Apple but their stock sure is nice!
What? This was my only comment on this thread and also has no relation to whatever pointless argument you were having. I was giving examples of other companies that charge surprising (to some people) rates.
Actually, in the android arena, there's more than one app store.
D
Deleted member 126051
Guest
Meh. It's Apple. What sane person gives a shit if they're straight-up buttfucking their own customers?
These people have already proved that they have more money than brains.
So the best thing you can do for a bandwagoning idiot with too much money is to take it away from them. BEFORE they use it for something that could actually hurt someone else.
These people have already proved that they have more money than brains.
So the best thing you can do for a bandwagoning idiot with too much money is to take it away from them. BEFORE they use it for something that could actually hurt someone else.
You don't like it? Don't buy Apple. You don't want to pay 30% for distribution? Don't develop on iOS. Its a supposedly free market and Apple will get away with whatever the market will sustain.
30% is nothing compared to what dev's on AAA game devs get screwed on via publishers.
30% is nothing compared to what dev's on AAA game devs get screwed on via publishers.
wtburnette
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,580
Free market capitalism works fine if done correctly. If the government stops making laws that protect certain market segments and if people abusing the system are caught and fined right away.
What Apple has done is intentionally created a Monopoly. They should be fined and forced to open their products up. Free market capitalism only works when the whole system is open. If any part of it is protected, that's where it gets screwed up. At least in the case of Apple, there are (now) other products that are similar that can be used to avoid their "walled garden".
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I think "monopolies" should only be an issue when the commodity is required to own ... it is hard to live without a phone or electricity or water so those things need monopoly protection ... an iPad is not required to own (nor are apps from the app store) so they should not fall under that protection (in my opinion)
this suit is not being brought by the developers and it is not about the 30% fee on apps (which is a service fee for hosting the app and processing the payments and not a "tax") ... the suit is from some alleged "consumers" who claim that app prices themselves are too high and would be lower with more stores competing ... Apple's argument is that they don't set the app prices, the developers do (so in this case it is hard to see how the Apple "monopoly" affects app pricing)
Also, with the vast majority of apps being under $5, how much lower can pricing actually go without forcing the developers into in app purchase products or some other method to generate revenue
Exactly, best analogy in the thread. Companies like Apple argue that controlling what software is on their equipment is necessary from the standpoint of providing safety and security to their customers.
But Chevrolet doesn't stop you from installing whatever parts you desire, you can install aftermarket brakes or tires if you want, you just void your warranty on those components and and waive support.