So if Apple is “anticompetitive” should Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft be forced to open up thier console app stores?

You're voluntarily purchasing a product from Apple and then complaining the product does something that's not only non-secretive, but actually used as a marketing point by Apple, the same company you bought said device from. You then mandate that this is, or at least should be, against the law. This is all in the context of a marketplace in which Apple has a non-monopoly position in.

Dude.

But the point is that Apple is not breaking the law. This is not an anti-competitive move by them.

And by what legal authority did you just state that?

Microsoft was forced to ship competitive browsers in the OS to avoid monopoly claims, but Apple - unlike Microsft, they won't even allow 'un-blessed' apps to RUN on the phone. Seems patently illegal

Microsoft did a lot of shit to warrant their anti-trust suit. The browser thing was one bit.

How about how they spent $1 billion to market IE (a free product) in order to cut into a potential (though indirect) competitor's product (Netscape). Netscape's browser was reaching the point (as early as this was in the WWW days) of being a potential host for cross-platform software applications. This terrified MS as it would eliminate a lot of their foothold in the business market, in particular.

How about how when Compaq and others wanted to sell non-Windows OSes, Microsoft threatened them with increased Windows licensing fees. They had access to OEM rates which meant they could participate in the cut-throat and very low margin PC business. Without those rates, they would have to raise their prices. Even an extra $100-200 would price them above their competitors. This was done to eliminate the OS competition (or constrain it).

What has Apple done that is equivalent to these actions? And how has Apple's (minority) marketshare enabled them to do these things?

All you've started here is that you dislike Microsoft. There's zero moral difference in Apple's actions on the app store and Microsoft from yesteryears

Moral and legal are different things and you keep conflating the two. Additionally, you're the one that brought up Microsoft's anti-trust issues. If you're going to make a comparison, make it correctly. And if you're going to talk about moral and legal, make sure you distinguish between the two concepts.

There is no specific law, or legal precedent disallowing a platform owner from exclusively controlling software distribution for their platform. In fact it’s been going on for a lot longer than the App Store. Several early smartphones before the iPhone were locked down in similar ways. Games console manufacturers and media player vendors often maintained exclusive services software and content distribution right. If n fact since you mention Microsoft, don’t they have an exclusive online store for XBox games? This sort of arrangement has been common practice for decades and never been legally barred that I’m aware of.

> Games console manufacturers and media player vendors often maintained exclusive services software and content distribution right[?]

That must not be true. Atari had to patent a mechanical mechanism that its cartridges used in order to prevent others from developing for their system.

And doing so was not illegal. That's exactly what I'm talking about - platform owners legally putting in place restrictions to control access to their platform, often because that's the primary way in which they make revenue.

Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop PC OS. Apple has no monopoly on any product category. (Defining "iOS" as a "market" and saying Apple has a monopoly over that is absurd; it would turn every platform into a monopoly. By that reasoning, Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook.)

The same legal authority you've used to make your argument.

And Microsoft's situation was quite different from this one. For one, they had an overwhelming monopoly in desktop operating systems (something like 95% marketshare), and they had several times been caught intentionally breaking competitors' offerings.

It's not breaking the law though.

Don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone then. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to use iOS or the App Store. End of story.

There's a number of handsets for you to choose from that aren't Apple's.

Huh? "Here's item A that breaks the law - if you don't like it, don't buy it". That's the crux of your tirade.

Apple's legal non-compliance cannot be justified by the existence of Android. Hence the lawsuit

It's not a crux at all it's the facts, Apple isn't breaking the law.

Whatever gymnastics you need to do to not think that is on your own. The Supreme court is being pulled in due to a split opinion, but one federal court has already ruled it legal.

That's not breaking the law. Also "if you don't like it, don't buy it" is literally how the market works. If you don't agree with the software decisions by Apple, you can happily flock elsewhere.

Regardless of your cherry-picking judgements that support your narrative, the fact that this in the supreme Court, and the fact that we're debating it on HN point to an uncertainty in legality.

The structure of the free market doesn't insulate monopolies or illegal items from being traded under the guise of choice. So don't keep pining on the existence of Android.

If you've lived under a rock, Apple banning an app from the app store can often be the death knell for the publisher, especially small ones. Stop pretending Apple isn't anti competitive on the app store