I dont know a single person outside of the SV bubble who is buying 'mah free market!' argument so prevalent here.
Most of the arguments I've seen here, that you are probably classifying under this aspersion, are probably some variant on:
- This doesn't look illegal under current (US) laws
- New laws to restrict this are hard to write constitutionally (in the US)
- If this happens a lot of the good parts of the ecosystem get thrown out also (arguments through security, fraud)
Whereas an awful lot of the other side looks like "This is unfair so must be illegal!" (30% arguments, very narrow definitions of the word "monopoly" that favour the arguer). Very few seem to actually argue that anything Apple/Google have done are illegal under current laws. I don't think the segment you are attacking for pure "It is free market therefore good" ideology exists.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when other countries, who aren't tied by the same conditions, start restricting this stuff.
Everything was legal until it wasn't. It was the same for Standard oil before 1911: they said it's all legal to have such a monopoly on oil.
For some people at the time, it was obvious this was an unfair advantage on the market, so they fought to make it illegal.
It's the same now. Of course Google and Apple mostly respect the laws of the land, but if a large swath of the population/industry thinks they are unfair, their position will soon become illegal as well.
The reality is that there's a vocal minority (looks around here) and the vast majority of people couldn't give a shit less.
Not once in my life has my dad, my grandma, or some random friend I met up with at a bar gone "jeez, Apple and Google sure do have a monopoly on pricing in their respective app stores and this harms me as a consumer". Nobody cares. In fact, most people probably think everything is amazing how it is now and don't think there's a problem. Personally, I'm knowledgable enough and I think things are way better now than they might be in a future state where this is changed. I know exactly what is going to happen. They are going to be forced to allow competing app stores (in the case of Apple) and then everybody I know is going to have like 5 stores installed, garbage apps spying and harvesting personal info, and it's going to just be a shit storm of stupid knock-offs, crappy products, and outright theft. There's no way around it and if you don't understand that you're now going to have to fix your grandma's iPhone now because Facebook wasn't on the Apple App Store but was on the whatever App Store you're living in a fantasy bubble where people are even moderately technically literate.
There's just a few disgruntled developers who don't like the rules so they complain loudly, and some billion dollar corporations who can make some money if they win legal cases. Small, but vocal players.
Unfortunately that's how a democracy in a country as large as the United States works. Most people don't care about something so one group can just shout loudly and eventually get their way, even if it is bad for the country as a whole. Then they get entrenched and laws are nearly impossible to repeal now. Then we overcorrect and pass new laws, but then these laws have loopholes or carve out exceptions. /rant
It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.
What we have today is a significantly larger momentum against tech monopolies.
Look at some of the practices that brought the case forward:
"An office boy working at the Standard Oil headquarters was given the job of destroying records which included evidence that railroads were giving the company advance information about refiner's shipments.[85] This allowed them to undercut the refiners"
Does that sound familiar? Google knows everything that happens on your phone; and they can just undercut every other successful app if they wish so? Or how Amazon can simply analyze all the sales and create their own version of the successful products?
You should read upon the woman who brought down Standard Oil ... It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.
She lost, she didn't win. Tarbell's confrontation with Rockefeller & Standard Oil and the legal actions of the authorities did the exact opposite of taking down Standard Oil. Standard Oil became even larger and more powerful. JD Rockefeller's family got far richer afterward. The Standard split itself into a more potent back-office interconnection of separate state chartered monopolies. No longer was there one monopoly controlled by Rockefeller, but numerous, all operating in concert as an oligopoly behind the scenes. The strings continued to be pulled by the Rockefellers just the same (which you can read about in eg Titan by Ron Chernow). It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice outcome that people were so afraid of in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Tarbell accomplished very little other than some harm to Rockfeller's reputation by exposing a few corners of that empire.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any anti-monopoly/trust action taken in the US that's been a net positive to the consumer. Can anyone point me to one?
Breaking up Ma Bell into baby Bells just created regional monopolies instead a national one. This was largely before my time, though. I've heard anecdotally that consumer prices went up as a result, but I don't know for certain.
I was negatively affected by AT&T being forced to divest their cable internet business, leading me to become a long-time Comcast customer through no desire of my own. Now, I'm back with AT&T with fiber to the home. Before AT&T ran fiber (just within the last 2 or 3 years), it was a choice between Comcast/Xfinity or terrible DSL.
"JD Rockefeller's family got far richer afterward."
"The strings continued to be pulled by the Rockefellers just the same (which you can read about in eg Titan by Ron Chernow). It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice outcome that people were so afraid of in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Tarbell accomplished very little other than some harm to Rockfeller's reputation by exposing a few corners of that empire."
Yeah, right, Rockefeller's family got richer but the influence of the founders rarely lasts more than a few generations before either the company goes belly-up or it settles into the position of an also-ran.
Sometimes it isn't true but it's more often than not the case with companies that have come to power and riches on a new wave of tech where the founders were instrumental in developing the tech. There are hundreds of examples. Let me list just a few:
* Baldwin Locomotive Works: if you'd said to anyone in the U.S. in 1900 that this famous company would eventually go belly-up in a couple of generations then they'd have said you were mad and would have escorted you to the asylum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Locomotive_Works.
* The Stanley Rule & Level Co. Also around 1900 many would have almost said the same about Stanley, today it's hardly even an also-ran (it now just packages tools made by others). In the latter half of the 19th Century, Stanley along with other parts of New Britain's manufacturing sector was known as the Patent Center of the world. Stanley, had hundreds of patents and one of the key innovators of the time, Justus A. Traut, whose patents Stanley used, was known as the Patent King. Today, few techies would have ever heard of Justus Traut let alone know what he did for the U.S. tool industry.
* Marconi Company, aka the Wireless Telegraph & Signal Company. The once famous Marconi company was one of the biggest and most important electronic companies in the world, it's now long defunct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Company.
* RCA/Radio Corporation of America. Another Guglielmo Marconi operation with the once legendary/infamous David Sarnoff at its helm—it too is now defunct (1986). Not long ago this was the biggest electronics company in the world. For starters, by about 1970, RCA was the principle equipment supplier to over 80% of all radio and TV stations in the U.S. alone (supplying complete turnkey operations). RCA built everything from semiconductors—transistors, ICs (e.g.: its famous 4000 series CMOS) to broadcast videotape recorders to satellites and everything in between. Now there's nothing left but scraps—the best of which were picked up by other companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA. (BTW, I'm quite familiar with this company as I once worked for it, excellent job it was too.)
Like it or not, Microsoft, Google and Apple will most likely go the same way for the very reason that those I've listed above have. In the end, history is against them surviving. Their tech will get tired and outdated and they will not adapt quickly enough (it's especially so with high tech after the founders leave or die off).
If you're a Microsoft, Google or Apple devotee then this seems an inconceivable outcome, for others it cannot come soon enough. However, the majority of the population couldn't give a damn either way.
I'm not arguing that all tech companies are or are not monopolies. I think Google and Facebook are specifically candidates for anti-trust regulation. But I don't see it with Apple at all, especially around this App Store issue, and I'm not really convinced that Amazon is either.
50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device.
You can't reach them without paying Apple tax. You can't write software and be done with it - you have to make their arbitrary reviewers happy and wait for releases. No matter what your business is.
They also keep you from forming a relationship with the customer. You don't get an email or anything. You're on their payment rails most of the time, which significantly increases risk.
One press of a button, and your business is obliterated.
Imagine if every car was either Ford or Tesla, and Tesla charged your destinations 30% on everything you do. Every bagel you buy, or every concert you attend.
Margins are tight as it is. Apple makes it substantially harder. Before Apple, people were satisfied with websites and Windows programs. Now everything has to be an App.
50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device.
Isn't this article about Korea? Anyway.
You can't reach them without paying Apple Tax
And? If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users. Can you not make money on the other 50% of users who use Android? If so that's kind of telling on its own. Or is it that you want your own business to be more lucrative? The thing is what is happening is that Apple is passing costs on to developers instead of consumers, and as a developer you don't like that. As a consumer, I love it. If they stop passing those costs and stop collectively bargaining against developers for me then the cost of the iPhone goes up.
Margins are tight as it is. Apple makes it substantially harder. Before Apple, people were satisfied with websites and Windows programs. Now everything has to be an App.
Maybe you just don't have a good enough business model? If it comes to having fewer apps on the Apple App Store or having multiple stores, as an iPhone user I prefer fewer apps for sure.
I wish Apple fans would see the world outside their bubble and empathize more.
Isn't this article about Korea?
The choice Korea is making is the same one the EU, Japan, etc. should be making. And ultimately, the same one to make right back at home.
If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users.
I'm pissed that I could write software for everyone pre-App store. This is all artificial nonsense that Apple invented. There's no cost to run instructions on your mobile CPU.
I hope Tesla starts charging businesses when Tesla customers arrive. Or maybe your clothing brand can charge stores because they keep you from being nude so you can safely buy things without being obscene. It's the same analogy.
The thing is what is happening is that Apple is passing costs on to developers instead of consumers
What costs? Their cartel is pure margin.
They don't charge websites, because it would be impossible and they'd never have been able to bootstrap their device. (Yet they certainly bar browser runtimes so that they maintain complete control.)
the cost of the iPhone goes up.
No it doesn't. They want more people on their hardware platform so they reap services revenue and can cross sell other devices. They're already making a killing.
Apple can innovate new products and revenue streams with all that money and all those engineers. If the only innovative business they can do is imposing an artificial tax, then they're simply a market distortion.
As a consumer, I love it.
You love our pain?
Maybe you just don't have a good enough business model?
I wish Apple fans would see the world outside their bubble and empathize more
What if we already listened to the arguments and discussion and just disagree? Maybe you should empathize more with me and not try to change something that I enjoy and have enjoyed since it was originally released? Where's your empathy?
What costs?
Apple makes money. That money funds the development of the iPhone. It also funds and allows them to create programs and initiatives I support like data privacy labels. If Apple is forced to throw this stuff out, those are costs that I now bear as a consumer. Apple might have to raise the price of the iPhone either directly or indirectly. Or competitive pressures may force them to remove simple payment methods like Apple Pay, not force developers to allow anonymous sign-ons, and other things. From my perspective there is nothing to gain. I don't want two or more App Stores. Period. I want one, just how it is, with Apple dictating the terms. It works well for me. Apple and I are on a team here.
Their cartel is pure margin. They invented this scheme
Weren't you just complaining about not having high enough margin? So only you get to make money and not Apple or other companies? I'm an Apple shareholder (directly and indirectly). Their margins benefit me directly. Yours? Not so much. So let's not act like it's some big evil David vs Goliath thing. You're running just another business.
You love our pain?
It might be pain to you, but it certainly isn't to me. I'd rather have far fewer apps than to see things change or have to deal with another App Store. I love my walled garden and developers like you are metaphorically barbarians at the gates coming to destroy a system I enjoy and works well for me. But why would you care about that when you want to make higher margins for your business? Something about empathy I think?
Sorry to sound like an asshole here. Just a hot topic.
Our field is being carved up by giants. It's a harvesting.
Companies like Apple decided to put energy into extraction rather than enrichment.
It's a shame. I wish I or someone like me was in charge, because I see a way to run things much differently and still produce great value for customers, shareholders, and the ecosystem.
Hoping the DOJ or Congress breaks this up since the Apple leadership won't.
Neither did any consumer complain to EU about credit card processing fees. Because they dont know. But EU business did. Just the same as App business in other country that are complaining now.
And EU took action on Visa and MasterCard processing fees.
And is the same argument, It is Apple's App Store, they can do what ever they want with it. Fine. Perfectly valid argument. But it is also EU's Market ( or in this case South Korean Market ), if Apple dont like it, do what the MacRumors comments have been telling Apple to do, Pull out of the EU and South Korean market to retaliate.
Neither did any consumer complain to EU about credit card processing fees. Because they dont know. But EU business did. Just the same as App business in other country that are complaining now.
Sure but that's not a great comparison. The experience for users is the same, you're just shuffling around who gets paid. A better comparison would be a business that only accepts cash who then has to accept credit cards so they raise prices for everyone.
Either way, in the case of Apple and the iPhone it changes the user experience and the ability of Apple to collectively bargain against developers for the interest of consumers (where we are aligned). With 3rd-party App Stores you can now take a company like Facebook with abusive privacy rules, or manipulative and scammy apps and they basically get back into the ecosystem. So you're going to lose a lot of good things for not much value.
I think the writing is probably on the wall for Apple, but hopefully the experience isn't destroyed too much. Sucks that we're going to a worse future.
And EU took action on Visa and MasterCard processing fees.
And did those businesses lower prices or keep the prices the same but pocket the extra margin they were padding on for the fees?
I'm not saying it wasn't a good move, Visa and MasterCard are useful middle people but middle all the same, but it seems to me to just be shuffling around who is getting paid. Where this affects small businesses, great! Where it affects large companies? Meh.
And is the same argument, It is Apple's App Store, they can do what ever they want with it. Fine. Perfectly valid argument. But it is also EU's Market ( or in this case South Korean Market ), if Apple dont like it, do what the MacRumors comments have been telling Apple to do, Pull out of the EU and South Korean market to retaliate.
I mean yea I'm not disputing that. The EU can pass whatever laws it wants, as can Korea. I just think it's anti-consumer. I don't think Apple will leave the markets though, they'll likely implement it and it'll just be a worse experience for EU citizens and South Koreans who have iPhones. I'm against it, personally.
It's probably true that the vast majority of people don't have an awareness of the impact and/or have little care but that doesn't make the issues unsubstantial.
You should actually look at Standard Oil - it lowered prices, increased access, and by the time it was broken up was already losing market share and was not nearly as dominant. As with most anti-trust arguments -- market domination is temporary unless granted by the government, e.g. AT&T. In general it is sour grapes from those who can't compete.
You should look at Standard Oil. Yes, it lowered prices and increased access. And it did things that were clearly blatantly unfair competition.
For one example, it demanded kickbacks from railroads on oil shipments - all oil shipments, including competitors'. It's pretty hard for a competitor to be able to compete in that environment.
If you're referring to drawbacks - then you have to ask, why did the railroads grant them? Why would other oil shipments pay a higher rate?
Is it because the volume and stability standard oil offered, as well as ownership of tankers and other critical infrastructure needed to be compensated for?
Once again, their market share was falling while these programs were going on so clearly it didn't hamper competition.
Why did the railroads grant them? Because Standard Oil was a huge amount of business. And back then, railroads had other railroads that competed with them. The railroads granted them under the threat of Standard Oil taking a huge amount of business to the competition.
Was it for the ownership of the tanks? No, I don't think so... but I can't prove it.
That it doesn't look illegal under current laws is not because the laws as written didn't anticipate it, but rather because the laws were reinterpreted in a way that is more convenient to monopolies:
Isn't that the point of laws and governments? That if enough people think something is bad or unfair, but is not currently illegal, then you introduce new laws to make it illegal?
I think ultimately this is why Apple and Google will get off with a slap on the wrist - like Korea, Japan, et al, we have our state industries that compete in the global economy. Apple and Google are our champion competitors, and while the US wants to appear principled, we also want to crush our global competitors. There is a snowflake's chance in hell that the US is going to cripple our champions in the name of principles, because it's not principles that are the concern, but the appearance of being principled. Why would we help the non-US businesses compete with the home team?
"Why would we help the non-US businesses compete with the home team?"
Because your home team is trashing your house, racketeering your businesses and pissing in your garbage bins. They harm US consumers first and foremost
Problem is, it's hard to find these consumers who are 'harmed' and clamoring for redress of their grievances. I'm one of them and I'm actually very happy with the value delivered per dollar in the existing mobile space.
Other businesses harmed? Maybe, but if you think that Epic is going to drop their prices 30% in lockstep with a hypothetical elimination of app store fees, I have a bridge to sell you. This dream of a breakup of Google and Apple is not going to be the boon to consumers that some idealists are imagining.
if you think that Epic is going to drop their prices 30% in lockstep with a hypothetical elimination of app store fees, I have a bridge to sell you.
While not 30%, they did drop 20% when switching to their own payment processing [0]. And even if they didn't, more money to them allows them to hire more developers to make their games better for their customers.
I dont know a single person outside of the SV bubble who is buying 'mah free market!' argument so prevalent here.
No one i know outside of SV bubble has even thought about this issue at all. Most immediately say "isn't it good that apple protects people?" and gives it no more thought.
As much as businesses would love it, i think attacking apple is still a hard political sell.
This is slap on the wrist considering the repeated crimes (bribery, corruption) - courtesy to his position in a vitally important chaebol. Having a CEO take a 1-year hiatus while serving a prison sentence wouldn't fly at any publicly listed American company, very few private companies with independent boards would countenance that either.
Comments
It's clear the days of this oligopoly operating unchallanged are numbered.
I dont know a single person outside of the SV bubble who is buying 'mah free market!' argument so prevalent here.
Most of the arguments I've seen here, that you are probably classifying under this aspersion, are probably some variant on:
- This doesn't look illegal under current (US) laws
- New laws to restrict this are hard to write constitutionally (in the US)
- If this happens a lot of the good parts of the ecosystem get thrown out also (arguments through security, fraud)
Whereas an awful lot of the other side looks like "This is unfair so must be illegal!" (30% arguments, very narrow definitions of the word "monopoly" that favour the arguer). Very few seem to actually argue that anything Apple/Google have done are illegal under current laws. I don't think the segment you are attacking for pure "It is free market therefore good" ideology exists.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when other countries, who aren't tied by the same conditions, start restricting this stuff.
Everything was legal until it wasn't. It was the same for Standard oil before 1911: they said it's all legal to have such a monopoly on oil.
For some people at the time, it was obvious this was an unfair advantage on the market, so they fought to make it illegal.
It's the same now. Of course Google and Apple mostly respect the laws of the land, but if a large swath of the population/industry thinks they are unfair, their position will soon become illegal as well.
The reality is that there's a vocal minority (looks around here) and the vast majority of people couldn't give a shit less.
Not once in my life has my dad, my grandma, or some random friend I met up with at a bar gone "jeez, Apple and Google sure do have a monopoly on pricing in their respective app stores and this harms me as a consumer". Nobody cares. In fact, most people probably think everything is amazing how it is now and don't think there's a problem. Personally, I'm knowledgable enough and I think things are way better now than they might be in a future state where this is changed. I know exactly what is going to happen. They are going to be forced to allow competing app stores (in the case of Apple) and then everybody I know is going to have like 5 stores installed, garbage apps spying and harvesting personal info, and it's going to just be a shit storm of stupid knock-offs, crappy products, and outright theft. There's no way around it and if you don't understand that you're now going to have to fix your grandma's iPhone now because Facebook wasn't on the Apple App Store but was on the whatever App Store you're living in a fantasy bubble where people are even moderately technically literate.
There's just a few disgruntled developers who don't like the rules so they complain loudly, and some billion dollar corporations who can make some money if they win legal cases. Small, but vocal players.
Unfortunately that's how a democracy in a country as large as the United States works. Most people don't care about something so one group can just shout loudly and eventually get their way, even if it is bad for the country as a whole. Then they get entrenched and laws are nearly impossible to repeal now. Then we overcorrect and pass new laws, but then these laws have loopholes or carve out exceptions. /rant
You should read upon the woman who brought down Standard Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Tarbell#Standard_Oil
It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.
What we have today is a significantly larger momentum against tech monopolies.
Look at some of the practices that brought the case forward:
"An office boy working at the Standard Oil headquarters was given the job of destroying records which included evidence that railroads were giving the company advance information about refiner's shipments.[85] This allowed them to undercut the refiners"
Does that sound familiar? Google knows everything that happens on your phone; and they can just undercut every other successful app if they wish so? Or how Amazon can simply analyze all the sales and create their own version of the successful products?
She lost, she didn't win. Tarbell's confrontation with Rockefeller & Standard Oil and the legal actions of the authorities did the exact opposite of taking down Standard Oil. Standard Oil became even larger and more powerful. JD Rockefeller's family got far richer afterward. The Standard split itself into a more potent back-office interconnection of separate state chartered monopolies. No longer was there one monopoly controlled by Rockefeller, but numerous, all operating in concert as an oligopoly behind the scenes. The strings continued to be pulled by the Rockefellers just the same (which you can read about in eg Titan by Ron Chernow). It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice outcome that people were so afraid of in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Tarbell accomplished very little other than some harm to Rockfeller's reputation by exposing a few corners of that empire.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any anti-monopoly/trust action taken in the US that's been a net positive to the consumer. Can anyone point me to one?
Breaking up Ma Bell into baby Bells just created regional monopolies instead a national one. This was largely before my time, though. I've heard anecdotally that consumer prices went up as a result, but I don't know for certain.
I was negatively affected by AT&T being forced to divest their cable internet business, leading me to become a long-time Comcast customer through no desire of my own. Now, I'm back with AT&T with fiber to the home. Before AT&T ran fiber (just within the last 2 or 3 years), it was a choice between Comcast/Xfinity or terrible DSL.
"JD Rockefeller's family got far richer afterward."
"The strings continued to be pulled by the Rockefellers just the same (which you can read about in eg Titan by Ron Chernow). It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice outcome that people were so afraid of in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Tarbell accomplished very little other than some harm to Rockfeller's reputation by exposing a few corners of that empire."
Yeah, right, Rockefeller's family got richer but the influence of the founders rarely lasts more than a few generations before either the company goes belly-up or it settles into the position of an also-ran.
Sometimes it isn't true but it's more often than not the case with companies that have come to power and riches on a new wave of tech where the founders were instrumental in developing the tech. There are hundreds of examples. Let me list just a few:
* Baldwin Locomotive Works: if you'd said to anyone in the U.S. in 1900 that this famous company would eventually go belly-up in a couple of generations then they'd have said you were mad and would have escorted you to the asylum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Locomotive_Works.
* The Stanley Rule & Level Co. Also around 1900 many would have almost said the same about Stanley, today it's hardly even an also-ran (it now just packages tools made by others). In the latter half of the 19th Century, Stanley along with other parts of New Britain's manufacturing sector was known as the Patent Center of the world. Stanley, had hundreds of patents and one of the key innovators of the time, Justus A. Traut, whose patents Stanley used, was known as the Patent King. Today, few techies would have ever heard of Justus Traut let alone know what he did for the U.S. tool industry.
https://datamp.org/patents/search/xrefCompany.php?source=xre...
https://www.datamp.org/patents/search/xrefPerson.php?id=124
https://eaiainfo.org/2018/01/06/trauts-model-shop-chamfer-pl... (BTW, note the quality of the patent drawings, all of Traut's patents are of this quality.)
* Marconi Company, aka the Wireless Telegraph & Signal Company. The once famous Marconi company was one of the biggest and most important electronic companies in the world, it's now long defunct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Company.
* RCA/Radio Corporation of America. Another Guglielmo Marconi operation with the once legendary/infamous David Sarnoff at its helm—it too is now defunct (1986). Not long ago this was the biggest electronics company in the world. For starters, by about 1970, RCA was the principle equipment supplier to over 80% of all radio and TV stations in the U.S. alone (supplying complete turnkey operations). RCA built everything from semiconductors—transistors, ICs (e.g.: its famous 4000 series CMOS) to broadcast videotape recorders to satellites and everything in between. Now there's nothing left but scraps—the best of which were picked up by other companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA. (BTW, I'm quite familiar with this company as I once worked for it, excellent job it was too.)
Like it or not, Microsoft, Google and Apple will most likely go the same way for the very reason that those I've listed above have. In the end, history is against them surviving. Their tech will get tired and outdated and they will not adapt quickly enough (it's especially so with high tech after the founders leave or die off).
If you're a Microsoft, Google or Apple devotee then this seems an inconceivable outcome, for others it cannot come soon enough. However, the majority of the population couldn't give a damn either way.
I should learn never to read my posts after the editing period ends as I inevitability find unfixable typos. That 'principle' one grates badly.:-)
I'm not arguing that all tech companies are or are not monopolies. I think Google and Facebook are specifically candidates for anti-trust regulation. But I don't see it with Apple at all, especially around this App Store issue, and I'm not really convinced that Amazon is either.
50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device.
You can't reach them without paying Apple tax. You can't write software and be done with it - you have to make their arbitrary reviewers happy and wait for releases. No matter what your business is.
They also keep you from forming a relationship with the customer. You don't get an email or anything. You're on their payment rails most of the time, which significantly increases risk.
One press of a button, and your business is obliterated.
Imagine if every car was either Ford or Tesla, and Tesla charged your destinations 30% on everything you do. Every bagel you buy, or every concert you attend.
Margins are tight as it is. Apple makes it substantially harder. Before Apple, people were satisfied with websites and Windows programs. Now everything has to be an App.
Isn't this article about Korea? Anyway.
And? If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users. Can you not make money on the other 50% of users who use Android? If so that's kind of telling on its own. Or is it that you want your own business to be more lucrative? The thing is what is happening is that Apple is passing costs on to developers instead of consumers, and as a developer you don't like that. As a consumer, I love it. If they stop passing those costs and stop collectively bargaining against developers for me then the cost of the iPhone goes up.
Maybe you just don't have a good enough business model? If it comes to having fewer apps on the Apple App Store or having multiple stores, as an iPhone user I prefer fewer apps for sure.
I wish Apple fans would see the world outside their bubble and empathize more.
The choice Korea is making is the same one the EU, Japan, etc. should be making. And ultimately, the same one to make right back at home.
I'm pissed that I could write software for everyone pre-App store. This is all artificial nonsense that Apple invented. There's no cost to run instructions on your mobile CPU.
I hope Tesla starts charging businesses when Tesla customers arrive. Or maybe your clothing brand can charge stores because they keep you from being nude so you can safely buy things without being obscene. It's the same analogy.
What costs? Their cartel is pure margin.
They don't charge websites, because it would be impossible and they'd never have been able to bootstrap their device. (Yet they certainly bar browser runtimes so that they maintain complete control.)
No it doesn't. They want more people on their hardware platform so they reap services revenue and can cross sell other devices. They're already making a killing.
Apple can innovate new products and revenue streams with all that money and all those engineers. If the only innovative business they can do is imposing an artificial tax, then they're simply a market distortion.
You love our pain?
And you blame me?
Ugh.
What if we already listened to the arguments and discussion and just disagree? Maybe you should empathize more with me and not try to change something that I enjoy and have enjoyed since it was originally released? Where's your empathy?
Apple makes money. That money funds the development of the iPhone. It also funds and allows them to create programs and initiatives I support like data privacy labels. If Apple is forced to throw this stuff out, those are costs that I now bear as a consumer. Apple might have to raise the price of the iPhone either directly or indirectly. Or competitive pressures may force them to remove simple payment methods like Apple Pay, not force developers to allow anonymous sign-ons, and other things. From my perspective there is nothing to gain. I don't want two or more App Stores. Period. I want one, just how it is, with Apple dictating the terms. It works well for me. Apple and I are on a team here.
Weren't you just complaining about not having high enough margin? So only you get to make money and not Apple or other companies? I'm an Apple shareholder (directly and indirectly). Their margins benefit me directly. Yours? Not so much. So let's not act like it's some big evil David vs Goliath thing. You're running just another business.
It might be pain to you, but it certainly isn't to me. I'd rather have far fewer apps than to see things change or have to deal with another App Store. I love my walled garden and developers like you are metaphorically barbarians at the gates coming to destroy a system I enjoy and works well for me. But why would you care about that when you want to make higher margins for your business? Something about empathy I think?
Sorry to sound like an asshole here. Just a hot topic.
Our field is being carved up by giants. It's a harvesting.
Companies like Apple decided to put energy into extraction rather than enrichment.
It's a shame. I wish I or someone like me was in charge, because I see a way to run things much differently and still produce great value for customers, shareholders, and the ecosystem.
Hoping the DOJ or Congress breaks this up since the Apple leadership won't.
Neither did any consumer complain to EU about credit card processing fees. Because they dont know. But EU business did. Just the same as App business in other country that are complaining now.
And EU took action on Visa and MasterCard processing fees.
And is the same argument, It is Apple's App Store, they can do what ever they want with it. Fine. Perfectly valid argument. But it is also EU's Market ( or in this case South Korean Market ), if Apple dont like it, do what the MacRumors comments have been telling Apple to do, Pull out of the EU and South Korean market to retaliate.
Sure but that's not a great comparison. The experience for users is the same, you're just shuffling around who gets paid. A better comparison would be a business that only accepts cash who then has to accept credit cards so they raise prices for everyone.
Either way, in the case of Apple and the iPhone it changes the user experience and the ability of Apple to collectively bargain against developers for the interest of consumers (where we are aligned). With 3rd-party App Stores you can now take a company like Facebook with abusive privacy rules, or manipulative and scammy apps and they basically get back into the ecosystem. So you're going to lose a lot of good things for not much value.
I think the writing is probably on the wall for Apple, but hopefully the experience isn't destroyed too much. Sucks that we're going to a worse future.
And did those businesses lower prices or keep the prices the same but pocket the extra margin they were padding on for the fees?
I'm not saying it wasn't a good move, Visa and MasterCard are useful middle people but middle all the same, but it seems to me to just be shuffling around who is getting paid. Where this affects small businesses, great! Where it affects large companies? Meh.
I mean yea I'm not disputing that. The EU can pass whatever laws it wants, as can Korea. I just think it's anti-consumer. I don't think Apple will leave the markets though, they'll likely implement it and it'll just be a worse experience for EU citizens and South Koreans who have iPhones. I'm against it, personally.
It's probably true that the vast majority of people don't have an awareness of the impact and/or have little care but that doesn't make the issues unsubstantial.
You should actually look at Standard Oil - it lowered prices, increased access, and by the time it was broken up was already losing market share and was not nearly as dominant. As with most anti-trust arguments -- market domination is temporary unless granted by the government, e.g. AT&T. In general it is sour grapes from those who can't compete.
You should look at Standard Oil. Yes, it lowered prices and increased access. And it did things that were clearly blatantly unfair competition.
For one example, it demanded kickbacks from railroads on oil shipments - all oil shipments, including competitors'. It's pretty hard for a competitor to be able to compete in that environment.
If you're referring to drawbacks - then you have to ask, why did the railroads grant them? Why would other oil shipments pay a higher rate?
Is it because the volume and stability standard oil offered, as well as ownership of tankers and other critical infrastructure needed to be compensated for?
Once again, their market share was falling while these programs were going on so clearly it didn't hamper competition.
Why did the railroads grant them? Because Standard Oil was a huge amount of business. And back then, railroads had other railroads that competed with them. The railroads granted them under the threat of Standard Oil taking a huge amount of business to the competition.
Was it for the ownership of the tanks? No, I don't think so... but I can't prove it.
This is obviously not true. The current Borkist interpretation of antitrust is barely 40 years old.
The movement towards "New Brandeis" antitrust philosophy is just going back to old normal with adjustments to new environment.
That it doesn't look illegal under current laws is not because the laws as written didn't anticipate it, but rather because the laws were reinterpreted in a way that is more convenient to monopolies:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/02/06/the-borking-of-amer...
So how about we just get back to the original intent of the law, for starters?
Isn't that the point of laws and governments? That if enough people think something is bad or unfair, but is not currently illegal, then you introduce new laws to make it illegal?
Funnily enough, South Korea is a country essentially full of monopolies almost as large as the state.
It is a country built on state-sponsored oligopoly as competitive advantage.
I think ultimately this is why Apple and Google will get off with a slap on the wrist - like Korea, Japan, et al, we have our state industries that compete in the global economy. Apple and Google are our champion competitors, and while the US wants to appear principled, we also want to crush our global competitors. There is a snowflake's chance in hell that the US is going to cripple our champions in the name of principles, because it's not principles that are the concern, but the appearance of being principled. Why would we help the non-US businesses compete with the home team?
"Why would we help the non-US businesses compete with the home team?"
Because your home team is trashing your house, racketeering your businesses and pissing in your garbage bins. They harm US consumers first and foremost
Problem is, it's hard to find these consumers who are 'harmed' and clamoring for redress of their grievances. I'm one of them and I'm actually very happy with the value delivered per dollar in the existing mobile space.
Other businesses harmed? Maybe, but if you think that Epic is going to drop their prices 30% in lockstep with a hypothetical elimination of app store fees, I have a bridge to sell you. This dream of a breakup of Google and Apple is not going to be the boon to consumers that some idealists are imagining.
While not 30%, they did drop 20% when switching to their own payment processing [0]. And even if they didn't, more money to them allows them to hire more developers to make their games better for their customers.
[0]: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
I don't see what's stopping them from doing that right now, they're running very fat 43% profit margins currently in their tech sweatshop[1].
[1] https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/23/18507750/fortnite-work-cru...
No one i know outside of SV bubble has even thought about this issue at all. Most immediately say "isn't it good that apple protects people?" and gives it no more thought.
As much as businesses would love it, i think attacking apple is still a hard political sell.
Nope, since it is South Korea, it is obvious Samsung is at play here.
Are we talking about the same company whose CEO was paroled recently after spending much of the year in jail in South Korea?
This is slap on the wrist considering the repeated crimes (bribery, corruption) - courtesy to his position in a vitally important chaebol. Having a CEO take a 1-year hiatus while serving a prison sentence wouldn't fly at any publicly listed American company, very few private companies with independent boards would countenance that either.
Yep the same.