There are many car manufacturers that Uber could choose from in just the same way that there are many platforms that developers can develop for.
Stop trying to spread the idea that the ability to make apps for the iPhone is an inalienable right.
If we are talking about platforms and not codebases there are waaay more than two.
iOS (App store)
Android (Google Play)
FireOS (Amazon App Store)
LineageOS (Fdroid)
One UI (Galaxy Store)
To name a few. These all have distinct and thriving marketplaces for apps with decent market share (some can overlap). The code base they use is irrelevant for this context.
Just to demonstrate that this is the variable that matters, consider the case where there are exactly three devices that have each of the other marketplaces installed on them, respectively. Would they present a meaningful competitive alternative to the big two?
4/5 in the examples I gave.
Google, Apple, Samsung and Amazon all have decent market share.
I couldn't find robust stats on Amazon's market share overall but I did find that they sold 5.3% of all tablets in Q3 2019. So if its true that the phone market is 20 times larger than that it would mean its unlikely that The Amazon App store is installed on 1% of all mobile devices.
> How many of those are installed on more than 1% of mobile devices (however broadly construed)?
> I doubt that they do more than 1% of the total app transactions
These goal posts keep moving
Yes, but neither should Apple have the right to prevent users from using alternative app stores and applications on their own iPhones.
Does Sony not have the right to prevent users from using alternative game stores to run unofficial games on their PS4?
Does Nintendo not have the right to prevent users from using an alternative to the eShop to download games for their Switch?
Does Tesla not have the right to prevent users from downloading and running whatever random applications they wish on their Tesla?
Because the phone belongs to the consumer, and the courts have already said that it is perfectly legal to jailbreak your phone, even though apple attempted to sue people who were doing this.
It is pretty horrible that Apple was trying to sue people, for modifying property that the consumer owned, and it required the courts to get involved, to clarify that it is perfectly legal to jail break your own property.
Houses can’t be arbitrarily changed. Cars have governors. Scissors shouldn’t be run with.
Ownership of an iPhone is not different. It just has special rules attached.
If you don’t mind breaking the warranty, please jailbreak your iPhone and install whatever apps you’d prefer.
None of these regulations are decided by the company that manufactured the device, they are all decided democratically by an elected state.
How about...
Houses can't have arbitrary appliances installed that weren't made by someone approved by the house-builder
Cars can't fill up gas from a stand not paying 30% by the car manufacturer
Scissors can't cut paper sold by someone unaffiliated by the scissor manufacturer.
Sounds reasonable to me!
> If you don’t mind breaking the warranty, please jailbreak your iPhone and install whatever apps you’d prefer.
No, Apple wanted jailbreaking to be "go to jail" illegal, not just voiding your warranty.
Of course, going by evidence in these threads, people would defend Scissors Corp to the death, arguing "but that's a feature which makes these scissors safe so people don't injure themselves, and sure they own half of the scissors (and paper) market but you can always bring your own scissors (and paper) and avoid interacting with people who use Scissors Corp stuff, so what's the problem?"
“Ownership” of a tool has always been limited to the feature set the manufacturer originally intended for it. This entitlement over the tools Apple creates, accurately advertises, and legal sells is the only problem I see.
If there was a scissors duopoly, in which a company that controls 50% of the market, implemented practices that are anti-competitive, then this could be illegal.
> has always been limited to the feature set the manufacturer originally intended for it.
Actually, no. Once you purchased the item, you can do whatever you want with it, regardless of what the manufacture wants.
> This entitlement
This is about anti-trust law. Apple should follow the law. They are not entitled to break the law, without consequences.
If you want to jailbreak your iPhone you can and you should! I even agree Apple should be forced to create more tools to create jailbroken iPhones.
However, the warranty should be void. Same as if you use scissors as a hammer, which is your right, the warranty is void. Expecting the original warranty to hold, or expecting the manufacturer to help you misuse the tool is the entitlement.
If their actions are anti-competitive, then they absolutely have obligations, under anti-trust law, which does not require a literal monopoly, and only instead requires significant market power for these laws to apply.
Apple is subject to the law. They have to follow it, or they will suffer consequences.
I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely. But that would definitely be better than the alternatives of allowing sideloading.
This is the entire point of the lawsuit and the debate.... That Apple's action were anti-competitive. You haven't actually given any reason as for why thats not true.
> where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf.
They will still be able to do that. They simple won't be allowed to make it extremely difficult for alternative app stores to be installed on the iPhone, if another user chooses to do so, if and when the lawsuit is resolved.
You will still be perfectly allowed to continue to not install any other app stores that you don't want installed on your phone.
> I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely
They won't. Instead, as long as it is simple and easy for competitors to install apps stores on the iPhone, then the anti-competitive arguments will go away.
> than the alternatives of allowing sideloading
If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. Its pretty simple. Your rights are not infringed on, if Apple is forced to allow people who are not you, to install competing app stores.
This is my position on this matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24287042
Meanwhile, we clearly disagree. It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit.
Best of luck to you and Epic’s position, but I truly hope the court isn’t misled by the short term “needs” of some iOS developers at the expense of the long term needs of Apple’s customers.
Thats is an absolutely ridiculous claim to make.
The fact that I would be allowed to easily install apps on my phone, that I paid for, is a ridiculous claim that this is somehow taking away your choice.
No. That is dumb. It is my phone. Not yours. Don't install apps that you don't like, if you don't want them. But me installing them on my phone, does not infringe on your rights.
> of the long term needs of Apple’s customers.
Those customers don't have to install anything that they don't want to install on the phones that they own. Easy. Me, as a 3rd party, being allowed to modify the phone that I own 100% is not related to that.
> It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit.
You did not make a single argument against the idea that Apple has significant market power.
Because you did not make a single argument against that, I am going to assume that you agree that Apple has significant market power, and has used it to harm competition. (Which would mean that Apple's actions are illegal)
My argument is that Apple has significant market power, on iOS devices. There is no denying that. In fact it is a feature for me as a customer to pool my buying power into a “customer’s union” of sorts.
I also agree that Apple has built a large barrier to entry, i.e. it has built trust with customers like me. I truly believe you’ve never tried both Android and iOS in earnest, or else you’d feel similarly.
However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market. I play Fortnite on my PS4 and always have.
Additionally, Apple has overall increased competition rather than hamper it. That said, I would like to see Apple compensate applications when it replaces poorer quality apps with better in-house versions, even though it doesn’t need to.
It would be a sincere set back for the entire economy if Apple was forced to sideload applications on iOS.
That said, as I have previously agreed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24419752
A monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply. Instead, only significant market power.
And the "market" in this case will likely be defined as the smartphone market in the USA, of which Apple has ~50%. Having 50% of a duopoly is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies, as a singular monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply (as defined by section 2 of the sherman act).
- used an iPhone as your primary device?
- used an Android as your primary device?
- played Fortnite, and on what device?
For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months.
Edit:
Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android already allows that, yet Epic is still suing Google. I ask because when you keep saying you're arguing "for customers" and "pro-competition", that Epic is just requesting a "basic right" (which they don't seem to be given the Google lawsuit).
I'm just wondering what background experience you have with all of these different companies and platforms that helps you judge what is best "for competition and the customer".
It is well established that a participant does not have to be a singular monopoly, in a market, in order for anti-trust law to apply.
And in this case, Apple has ~50% of the smartphone market, in the USA, which is enough that anti-trust law can apply.
> yet Epic is still suing Google
Google also has large amounts of market power. Anti-trust law applies to them as well, given that they argueably have large amounts of control over the other 50% of the US smartphone market (even if it is a bit less direct of a control, as compared to Apple which is vertically integrated, and controls both the hardware and software. But sure, the case is less clear cut with Google, if you want to make that argument.)
> So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems.
Ok, sure. You win!
Well yeah, you just ignored the things that I said, multiple times.
We cannot make productive arguments about anti-trust law!
I have done my best to respond to you respectfully and with my best ability.
I have previously responded to your specific questions with, “If then yes. But it seems unlikely” and “It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit.”, etc.
Are you willing to answer the questions I asked?
The entire discussion of all of this, is about anti-trust law....
Also, we can absolutely make reasoned judgements on things, based on the evidence.
I am not sure why people have a tendency to think that law, precedent, and court cases are somehow completely impenetrable to people who have not spent decades of their life studying it.
In fact, speaking as someone who has read the legal documents in this court case, as well as attended the public zoom call court case (The epic vs apple trial is public! You, yourself can listen in on it in a zoom call!), what I can tell you is that the arguments that people are making are not complicated legalese. Instead, the lawyers and judges are making reasonable, and understandable arguments, that are pretty easy to follow along.
In fact, our entire justice system is built on the concept of juries, which are full of people who are not legal professionals, just like you and I, who decide based on listening to the arguments, and making a judgement themself on who was right or wrong.
If a jury is entrusted with the legal power, to determine the outcome of our justice system, then I think it is ok for individuals, who have listened to the trials, read the court documents, and done research on the law, to make reasonable judgements themselves on the matter, when having casual conversations regarding the topic.
> But it seems unlikely
For which you provided poor supporting arguments.
> answer the questions I asked
You tried to ignore the main point that I was trying to make, regarding anti-trust law, for which I providing well reasoned arguments, and you tried to ignore it by engaging in what was effectively an implied ad hominem by trying to attack me based on perceived (and false!) notion regarding how much I may or may not use certain devices.
You even literally used the word "character" to describe this. Which was effective admitting that you were not attacking the substance of my comment, but were instead trying to investigate my "character".
I reject that. When you cannot respond to the substance of someone comments, I do not think it is valid to try and switch things up by interrogating someone's character, based on false perceived notions of their character or experience.
The Strata/HOA regulates the appliances, the customizations, even the “look and feel” of my patio.
Your house example is wrong, because that has public viewing concerns on a plot of land.
And your car example is incorrect. I could make any changes at all to a car, that is not put on public roads.
That has nothing to do with the manufacturer putting restrictions on your car.
The same applies to all private houses, installing in a home a powerful transmitter to broadcast noise is certainly illegal without approval.
If you want to cherry pick arguments we can do this all day. The reality is Apple is just doing what every manufacturer has done for millennia!
Certain actions are illegal if a company has too much market power.
Anti trust law does not require a literal, singular monopoly, in order for some anti-competitive behaviors to be illegal.
Instead, Apple has ~50% of the market share in the US, and that is within the realm where certain actions become illegal, according to anti-trust law.
All computing devices should be free and open.
Stallman was right.
The world is trending toward a corporate-owned hellhole.
I'd say you also have an inalienable right to repair and modify things that you own, and that includes running code on computers you own, like the iphone
That depends. Is the car dealership making it impossible for me, as a buyer, to buy from different car dealerships, and forcing me to only buy it from them?
That would be a more similar analogy.
Epic would likely not have any problem at all, if it was possible to easily install the epic app store on the iPhone. But its not. Because Apple makes it almost impossible for competitors to install other app stores on the iPhone.
You can switch to Android, and in fact Android holds the global majority of smartphone users (yes yes, iOS is the majority in the US by a small margin).
I think we need to rethink the whole vertical integration thing entirely, instead of trying to reason about vertically integrated platforms in terms of non-vertically-integrated platforms. It doesn't seem to work.
No, not really. I am pretty sure that it is perfectly legal for other people to buy and then resell teslas.
I do not believe that Tesla is suing people who resell Teslas.
> the global majority of smartphone users
In the USA, the Iphone has about 50% of the smart phone market. And when it comes to US anti-trust law, thats all that matters.
We're not talking about reselling — we're talking about people selling brand-new product. Most people don't buy a Toyota new from Toyota directly; they go to a local Toyota dealership. But you can't buy a new Tesla through a dealership, because Tesla doesn't allow it. You can only buy a new Tesla through Tesla directly.
> In the USA, the Iphone has about 50% of the smart phone market. And when it comes to US anti-trust law, thats all that matters.
You missed my point. I was saying that Android is a viable alternative to iOS, as shown by the fact that most people in the world (and many people in the US) use Android instead of iOS. If the policies of iOS are not to your liking, you can choose to not support the platform.
And tesla does not prevent someone from buying a Tesla that is brand new, and selling it.
> because Tesla doesn't allow it.
False. it would be perfectly legal to immediately sell a new tesla that you just purchased. That would be a brand new tesla.
Thats brand new, that would be no different than buying from tesla.
> I was saying that Android is a viable alternative to iOS,
Apple has ~50% of the market share in the US. Anti trust law does not require a literal, singular monopoly, in order for certain anti-competitive behavior to be illegal. Instead, 50% of the market, is within the realm of when certain behavior can become illegal.
> If the policies of iOS are not to your liking
If the policies are anti-competitive, then Apple can be sued for having illegal policies, due to their market share. 50% of the market, is wihin the realm where anti-competitive practices become illegal.
In some states its illegal for the car manufacturer to directly sale to the consumer, they have to go through car dealerships.
The local dealerships are small businesses incorporated in the states so they can be subject to more political pressure and local control.
It has been eroded over the years but originally the dealerships protected consumers from the sort of bad behavior you see from Telsa and Apple.
Not that I love the dealership model but there is real competition at the local level on car repair in a way that there doesn't appear to be with Telsa.
Since the extra cost between selling 1 copy and 1 million copies is not the same as between selling 1 car and 1 million cars.
Which will place Apple in a much more difficult position than if they unilaterally reduced their commission level to 15%.
The claim that Epic has “lined [its] pockets at Apple’s expense” implies that Apple deserves to sit in the middle of every transaction that happens on their devices and take a margin. This is the world’s most valuable company we’re talking about here; assertions like this demonstrate an unbelievable lack of self-awareness.
Let’s also not forget that Apple already extracts huge amounts of money from developers even if they don’t make a cent on transaction margins.
It’s not possible to develop for iOS without a Mac, and therefore even the smallest developer making free apps has paid Apple for at least: one computer, one of each device class they develop for, and the cost of their developer account subscription. Large companies like Epic buy thousands of computers and test devices from Apple. The idea that anything is happening “at Apple’s expense” is preposterous.
Maybe next Toyota will decide that they deserve a percentage of Uber’s revenue because Toyota's cars help facilitate Uber’s business?