A competitive market would be one in which the platform providers were forced to divest from the app markets, and support competing app markets which meet requirements, and which actively compete on features and price.
If cars only supported gasoline from manufacturer gas stations, and 95% of the market was controlled by cars from GM and Ford, and once you bought a GM car you could only buy gasoline from a GM gas station, would you call the gasoline market competitive?
To extend the metaphor, let's say it was technically possible to use third-party gas stations, but the manufacturers had hidden this ability, and it required a small amount of mechanical knowledge to enable, and maybe voided your warranty, would you then consider the market competitive?
How much do they take? 30% and 30%.
Is there an option where they take less than 30% or where someone can compete on that cut? No.
Is there a different store you can use with the same privileges as these two stores? No.
Can you take your payments outside of the store and manage payment fees yourself so as to not give them 30%? No.
At best I guess we could say Google has a carrot approach where Apple prefers the stick.
Ideally measured two ways: in downloads and in dollars.
In fact, they don’t even really compete with each other. Play is only on Android and App Store is only on iOS.
You could say Android and iOS compete with each other, but once someone has bought a phone, they do not have a choice of where to buy apps.
When I buy a phone I can choose from multiple models, then once I choose a model I can choose a store where I want to buy it. These 2 examples are competitive. Then I can choose what app I want to buy, but I can't choose anymore where I buy it (at least on IOS). There's no competition between stores. There's just competition between phone manufacturers that ends the moment you choose the phone, from then onwards is a monopoly (or near monopoly in case of Android)
We already had battles on this front, Microsoft had to offer competing browsers for some time at least in the EU. Manufacturing the platform ceases to afford dictatorship when the device reaches a large enough share of the population imo.
They actually can't. Not legally, anyway.
I am not a lawyer, but Nintendo famously lost a lawsuit, when attempting to block third-party software distribution : https://openjurist.org/16/f3d/1032/nintendo-of-america-inc-v... Sega (back when Sega was a major console competitor) also lost a similar lawsuit, when attempting to block third-party software distribution : https://openjurist.org/977/f2d/1510/sega-enterprises-ltd-v-a...
If we still had anti-trust enforcement, this should set precedent against what Apple is doing here today. We already decided this issue in the 80s and 90s, making a specialized locked-down computer (i.e., a "game console") does not entitle you to own the entire software market for that device. And so long as you don't steal copyrighted materials to do so (see Nintendo v Atari), you are allowed to reverse engineer and sell your own software for these devices, without any royalties or licensing owed.
If you want iPhones to be treated like "gaming consoles" instead of computers, then it is already legal to jailbreak an iPhone, distribute your own apps (or entire app store) and sell to iPhone users, without ever paying Apple a single penny.
It's even legal by precedent to modify other people's software when selling your own third-party software (see Game Genie / GameShark lawsuit, it's legal to sell a program that modifies someone elses copywritten software, so long as you don't include or redistribute the original copywritten code).
This is a stupid question. Whether or not there is competition on iOS doesn’t matter as long as there exists viable competition on any viable platform.
Apple and Google may be competitors, strictly speaking, but the reality is they've pretty well carved up the market between premium buyers mostly concerned with fit+finish, prestige, and compatibility with other Apple devices, and the operating system and network infrastructure for, well, everything else.
It's absolutely a duopoly, and so minimally competitive: either Google or Apple would happily claim leadership status, but neither party really wants the other to go away lest actual competition or government intervention cause them to lose control of their patch of ground.
Somehow there are heaps of expensive android phones that sell just fine. The flagship Samsung phones cost more than any iPhone.
> It's absolutely a duopoly, and so minimally competitive
Well no, there are tons of smartphone manufacturers with viable products.
There are 2 viable software platforms.
Interesting and rather unfortunate that you should use that example, since the landmark Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act famously invalidated automakers attempts to revoke their products' warranty if aftermarket parts were installed. It's a clear example of a consumer-hostile practice that was deemed to be unfair and regulated, even though no monopoly was involved.
> They are the very definitions of predatory competition squashing monopolies.
But they aren’t, this is a rather competitive space.