Apple isn't even the #1 handset manufacturer (they are #3 or #4 depending on who you ask), and far and away isn't the #1 laptop manufacturer.

The attitude that it is a monopoly is exactly the disconnect between this article and your comment. The article thinks your market will just move without different revenue models. That is difficult, it's probably better to find a different market and revenue model.

Your comment is saying that it's worth trying to get Apple to change. That is difficult, near impossible, where they have no incentive to change unless you threaten change yourself with a different market/revenue model.

It seems like your hand is forced - you must do both. You must have a compelling market outside of Apple somehow, and you must petition Apple to change so you can keep access to their market.

I have strong feelings about Apple & Google making "markets" that are not fair/regulated the way I would like - but this idea that it's a monopoly to be "broken up" is not representative of reality.

House Antitrust Committee chairman David Cicilline yesterday:

“Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market,” said Rep. Cicilline. “It’s crushing small developers who simply can’t survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn’t happen.”

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-store-...

Oh it is possible to get Apple to change. Not by asking nicely, but perhaps by carrying a big stick. The arrogance Apple displays today is much the same as Microsoft back in the day. Let's hope for a similar outcome as back then, which fundamentally changed Microsoft for the better. It's possible, but not if we don't try.

But again a court is unlikely to accept that reasoning. And if you think about it for 3 seconds it's obvious why: Apple's "monopoly" was established when the App Store was launched in 2008 when the iPhone was an insignificant share of the market. That would also mean that any future product (like the AR glasses, or from any other company) would have "monopoly power" in their platform as soon as they ship 1 unit. This is obviously an absurd outcome.

In the video "Competition is for Losers with Peter Thiel", Peter Thiel discusses this. The problem here is in how you define "monopoly". If you're a large company, you want to say that the market is a lot larger than what you are operating in. To take this to an extreme, you could say that you're a technology company and if people dont like cell phones, they can use tablets/laptops/desktops. Conversly, if you narrow the definition of monopoly, there are tons of them. E.g. how many supermarkets are there within a 4 block radius of my house?

Because of this, instead of simply looking at scope, a common method is to look at what sort of behavior is the company taking. Is the supermarket lowering its prices below profitable to not allow another supermarket to survive in my neighborhood? In the case of Apple, I think people see the behavior of controlling the App Market as a monopolistic behavior which prevents others from competing.

If you're going to exclude all potential products where you have to go through apple to be a major player (given the competition), you're excluding most of the software market. Maybe developers don't really have a choice?

And yeah, apple is not a monopoly, but apple/google for sure is a duopoly, and google is only incrementally better than apple.

But as the parent comment you're replying to said, the situations aren't comparable.

Microsoft had over 90% of the market in the 90s. You could not stop using Windows, because there was simply no credible alternative for most consumers. That's not true for iOS.

If Microsoft at the time had, say, 50% of the market the outcome would likely have been extremely different.

I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os.

> I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os.

You should probably look that up then, instead of "doubting": https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...

Government worked out the correct action a long time ago. When you see a trust, you destroy it, when you still get collusion between the separate companies that is manageable since collusion has prisoners dilemmas.

I’m sure the government has to technical wherewithal to make sure that Apple is compliant with browser standards....

https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...

In the US, "The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance."

By having full access to the API, MS could no longer give IE special privileges (for example, being the only default browser choice when a link is clicked to be opened). At any rate, it's not a stretch to imagine similar movements towards Apple's app store. The parallels are quite similar.

The parallels aren’t similar. Apple has less than 50% market share in the US and even less in Europe. Every console maker does the same as Apple.

So they creted a platforn and enforce service. Thats creating playground, rules and playing the game.

Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further.

By giving customers no choice, it's limiting hardware capabilities of your device.

This only became an issue when their market share was far greater than the competition, which is simply not the case.

This is just developer sour grapes. You want more money. Just say it.

Sure, if you're just counting units sold. But by total app store revenue, the metric that actually matters, they account for well over two thirds of the market.

Their users devices.

[1] Apple owns less than 10 % of the laptop market.

15 years ago when I did they had great cost-performance, i.e. they held their value relative to the competition, remained usable for longer for a number of reasons and when sold actually yielded better value over the full lifecycle. Has this changed?

Surely indicative of the shoddy quality Apple is known for...

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-users-spend-twice-apps...

Their existing monopolistic actions like “preventing interoperability at any cost” feeds this viscous cycle where high school kids are embarrassed to send text message to iPhone from an Android device.

I own Apple stock, would love then to crush competition, but let us not twist facts.

Remove the gate, the quality dips. I'd imagine the amount willing to pay goes down too.

Citations missing since I‘m on mobile.

That’s not how monopolies work.

Not sure why everyone has rose colored glasses for Apple's hardware enforced software monopoly.

It's even worse than that. Even if you leave Apple ecosystem, you are still subject to it. Consumers don't like paying different prices based on the platform they are using. They will feel cheated. For this reason, app and service developers almost always price their products the same across all platforms. If a service developer estimates that 50% of the service's customers end up signing up through Apple Pay and pay the Apple tax, which one of these scenarios do you think will happen:

1) The developer will just eat the loss and will not take Apple's cut into their calculations of what the pricing should be at all;

2) They charge users who sign up through Apple 30% more;

3) They charge everyone the same. In order to negate the effect of Apple tax, their prices end up being higher than they otherwise would have been. Everyone, Apple user or not, ends up paying 15% higher.

I would wager that number 3 is what happens in almost all instances. You cannot not pay the Apple tax, even if you never use Apple.

On a side note, I am so surprised that so many people see this as a fight between Apple and developers. They view the Apple tax as something developers pay and thus is developers' problem, not theirs. Like any tax, ultimately, we the consumers end up paying it. It may be indirect, but it is coming out of our pocket. And it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I would have to pay more than $1000 to buy a device, and then get nickel-and-dimes by Apple to actually use the said device.

Developers all want into the walled garden because it is a great walled garden, consumers are very happy, they trust it more, they spend more. But when you let everything in, it becomes a dumpster fire of crapware, and people overall spend less.

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-users-spend-twice-apps...

I'd argue Apple's walled garden is better for good quality developers. There are cases that suck - but that is an exception to the rule.

The gap is quite obvious - because of the multitude of free alternatives on android, users are far more likely to not spend. The competition is way higher.

Developers want to destroy the walled garden but the fact is their product will be instantly devalued.

Manufacturers sell things at different prices all of the time. Spotify even sold subscriptions at different prices when they did allow in app subscriptions.

On a side note, I am so surprised that so many people see this as a fight between Apple and developers. They view the Apple tax as something developers pay and thus is developers' problem, not theirs. Like any tax, ultimately, we the consumers end up paying it

Yes consumers pay retailers mark up and not wholesale. News at 11

Bad taste in my mouth is not going to accomplish anything. Simply not buying an Apple device does not accomplish anything either. Speaking out, raising awareness, asking for regulations, etc. is the only way to accomplish anything.

Imagine how much more you could save if companies wouldn't have to include corporate tax burden into prices of their products. And what if you were exempt from income tax too? Just a food for thought.

The hubris and contempt for democracy emanating from tech bros is astounding. It's not going to be fashionable forever.

And regulation. See GDPR and CCPA.

You seem to have a very confused view of the consumer role legally and historically.

Giving them money for a product does not give you a real voice.

Argue for that first. Otherwise you may as well argue you’re a stakeholder to a tree.

If no one enjoyed the shade of a tree, it wouldn’t cease to exist. If customers stopped paying a business, they likely would.

Customers used to have more choice, this made them highly valued stakeholders.

Before the era of permanent rolling mandatory updates and new releases customers (And IT managers) had to be convinced a new version had more value than the software it was replacing.

Windows Vista, DOS 4 And numerous other software failed to get traction because the value of new features was too low vs the pain points.

Now days the focus is on shareholder value not customer needs.

Locking in customers and maximising revenue is far more important than marking software better for the end user or IT teams.

I’d never be caught dead complaining about how I “got screwed over” by entering an arrangement I knew about up front.

I would complain about government deciding the way the world worked decades before I was born as if that’s how it must work forever.

You emit whatever syntax your limbic system pushes your cortex to supply motor agency to, what’s useful inside your little bubble.

I’ll argue in mine. Aside from time/place of our body, it’s all we can do anyway.

So, how many different word processors and spreadsheet providers does the EU bureaucracy itself use?

Lots of people complained. The EU did nothing. Truly - Microsoft office is as dominant as it ever was. It the EU has an anti-monopoly/dominance purpose, if MS Word/Excel/Powerpoint isn't its white whale, its hard to imagine what would be.

And the GDPR is being similarly defanged.

For GDPR you need to wait before you conclude, it is similar to laws that force companies to label the food and drinks, now the websites are labeled if they contained shit and how many tons of shit contain but some people instead of complaining that there is too much shit in the website they complain that the labels are too big and would prefer a cool shiny logo instead of informative text.

Did you even try to be honest? In no way Microsoft did ever prevent competitor browsers from being installed. Nobody forced, forces or will force you to use IE, no matter the EU. It was typical EU bureaucratic socialist bs, doing the thinking for the user and of course in the end just sucking rich American tit by fining because they create nothing and just want to run those who do. Just like Soviet Union.

Also, I don't need "Mother EUSSR" telling me who collects data/uses cookies and ruining overall browsing experience. It's funny how their efforts are actually counter productive, because it's near impossible to browse the net in private mode (the one thing that ACTUALLY prevents data collection, not the useless cookie agreement pop-ups).

So if I want to make a good video hosting platform I need to compete with Google, but Google is using their search dominance to offer YT for free so I can't compete fair with them. Same if I want to make an IDE or web browser, I am forced to compete with Chrome and Visual Studio Code, free stuff paid with money from other markets, so when all competition is killed you get the IE case where shit stagnates because there is no competition.

I'm all for breaking up Apple for being a bunch of abusive jerks, but they really aren't a "Monopoly" in any useful definition of the term. Android is a drop-in replacement and it has a massive amount of marketshare (sure it sucks too in different ways, and sure more competition would be better, but you certainly don't have to buy any Apple products).

The point of this article, as I read it, is that people have bought into the Apple ecosystem so hard (due to that carefully manicured Apple reputation) they fail to even consider switching to anything else or dropping support for Apple. Even developers! When I see the 1000th blog post about how crappy Macs are and how garbage Apple's walled garden is on the front page of HN, I know that countless people here will toss it an upvote and comment in agreement, but many will still tune in breathlessly for the next WDC and go purchase the next Apple device to hit the shelves.

You don't need Apple. Nobody needs Apple anything. Complaining about their practice while buying their products... well, that's basically the definition of "whining."

Switch to Linux (or Windows, if you really prefer locked down / closed source solutions). Switch to Android. Stop paying if you don't like the terms.

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

Not only are there alternatives, the alternatives are extremely similar to the iPhone.

Another interpretation for users who complain loudly but never switch: it just doesn't bother them that much. It bothers them enough to tweet and blog about it, but not enough to actually inconvenience themselves by switching phone platforms.

Apple knows this, and that's why it doesn't change. And it won't change until people actually act instead of just talk.

Basically: Apples competitors marketshare concentrates on the lower cost market part while sharing the infrastructure. Apple has it's users locked in to their environment and controls the upper part of the market. Making it not only hard to switch the infrastructure but also keeping the price always as up as necessary/possible to dominate the upper price region of the market.

Edit: why am I getting downvotes?

Apple therefore controls the price for their locked in environment. Rising prices for hardware, fees, accesoirs, repairs,...

At least this is how I understand this theory but since I'll probably get downvotes again, this will be my last comment on this. Sorry.

Applying the same logic for: - "Whining" customers: just go use someone else product; you are going to miss new ideas and paint points that you can solve - "Whining" about country or politics - imagine the phrase "if you don't like your leaders of your country, just leave the country and go somewhere else"; it's absurd. - "Whining" about family and friends: just stop hanging out with them; most people have no choice to change who they are with... - "Whining" about social media fake news: just stop using it. ...

We don't need to go to all variations but this is not the right mindset.

That logic is usually used by monopolies, dictators and so on to shut up people. Don't fall into that argument trap.

We live a world where there are two walled gardens that control everything you do. They are both lovely and nice, and you can choose which you pick, but in both, everything you do owned by the landlord. Even how we communicate is controlled, and talking to people in the other garden is degraded. (iMessage and FaceTime).

Even if both walled gardens have 50% marketshare, there is no monopoly, but is that really the world we want to live in? Taking your business to the other walled garden is not an incentive to either company to build shorter walls.

It seems we need to be talking about regulating vertical integration and walled gardens, not monopolies.

Then web apps could be bookmarked within iOS, and push notifications routed through the mini-Growl app?

At what point do the people speaking up just stop using the thing that they dislike so much?

Yes. Why would I complain about an option when I have another option? I think the entire Android ecosystem is janky. So I don’t buy Android devices.

They have no real hardware or store monopoly, Android still out numbers them in install base.

Legally it’s undecided at all. This is essentially complaining Walmart and Target use different means of revenue generation for placing product.

Maybe Microsoft can get a phone and store off the ground that has a bigger install base. Oh wait. Maybe app sellers should have heeded the warnings when app stores launched about this exact problem!

Just because you and others don’t feel good about it doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

App sellers have a legitimate issue with Apple after choosing to go all in knowing how it works.

It's hard to imagine how the precedent established by not forcing change here would be desired by anyone. We're not far from a world where basically all of the software you can consume, how you can consume it, and even the price of it, is effectively determined (or at least heavily influenced) by one of 3 companies. We're not talking about just the services those companies offer, we're talking about all of the software services that any company wants to offer.

The cost of building a new operating system in the modern age is incredibly prohibitive, such that we're unlikely to see any meaningful competition in the form of alternatives here. Even if such a project were to happen, they'd have to overcome the incredible inertia secured from walled garden that the major players have built for their own ecosystems.

Jailbreak your iPhone and start installing applications from other sources. If Apple tries to stop that then you can sue them that they deny you rights to use something that you legally own (the iPhone).

The only downside here is: I would have a hard time trusting an app from outside the AppStore.

> This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing dissent.

Apple is suppressing dissent by not caring what their users and developers are saying. There is no path forwards from speaking up other than a boycott, because Apple isn't going to listen to you.

> This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be broken up.

Apple has a monopoly on iOS. Google has a monopoly on Android. Neither has a monopoly on PostmarketOS.

I doubt you'll be successful in convincing the DOJ that Apple needs to be broken up on that basis.