Anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers is the problem (and question). Whether Apple is a monopoly or not is really besides the point.
There is no competition in hardware for their operating system because of them locking it down.
There is no competition in operating systems for their hardware because of them locking it down.
There is no competition in application delivery for their systems because of locking it down.
There is no competition in some applications and/or functionality (webview/safari) for their systems because of them locking it down.
Each of these rely on and in turn reinforce the others. Taken together they all Apple to control absolutely all competition to do with their devices. Some aspects of this are fairly normalized and we're used to, but others less so (the complete hardware/OS lockdown, which in turn feeds into problems with repair). Whether some aspects seem normal or not, they all deserve a look with fresh eyes, as the world and how we use devices like this is changing, and old models of thinking may or may not work best for us. The bottom line is whether consumers are harmed by their actions or not, and that's what we should use to measure this, not whether it seems okay, or matches our way of thinking about what a company should be able to control.
At the base level, I think a useful question to ask is "why is the store cut for managing and distributing apps 30%, and why hasn't it changed with the emergence of other stores?" One answer might be that it really takes about 30% of revenues to provide store functionality. Common public sources seem to indicate this is not the case. Another answer might be that for some reason, the market is resistant to change. I think this is because one large market member, Apple, is insulated from competition to a large degree, and didn't feel any pressure to change. Other market members match this number because the market is distorted by Apple's resistance to change. I think the fact that as soon as congress started making noises about investigating app market pricing Apple was able to immediately drop their cut for certain store items significantly points towards them knowing this, and wanting to get ahead of the problem so the status quo isn't changed too much to their detriment.
The only claim one could make is “hey, 30% seems a bit high to do business there”. Yet Apple can claim that you pay a premium to get access to millions of consumers which they’ve cultivated a strong relationship with. Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard. This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple.
What? You can put a BMW engine in another car, you can put another engine in a BMW. BMW does not make it so that you can't use other engines or parts. This is nothing like BMW. I don't know about Tesla, but I suspect it's more a matter of others not making engines that fit the spec than it being explicitly designed to not allow other engines, but I really don't know enough about them to so.
> Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard.
The running of it is always easy. Getting to the point it's successful is hard, because it requires many other things to go right.
> This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple.
What are you talking about? Epic is specifically bringing suit so they can run their own app store. Not only that, but they already run their own app store. Epic already has the infrastructure and inventory to be a credible alternative for games, because they have hundreds of games they already deliver on Windows, at a smaller cut than Apple charges in their app store.
This isn't about Epic wanting to cash in on Apple's app store it's about them outgrowing it and wanting to open their own store when Apple won't let them (they might also be fine with a lower cut from Apple, but they would rather run their own store. They're keen to spend those Fortnite billions to expand as quickly as possible. They already opened their alternative to Steam on Windows, they would be happy to be the alternative to the App Store on iPhones for games).
This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small.
This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place.
You can't install Mercedes OS (I don't expect the iPhone to run windows it Microsoft doesn't want to port it), but you can customize the OS, as outlines here.[1] They call it a jailbreak, but given that it looks to just be replacing data files, I'm not sure someone couldn't opt to write their own portion of the system software entirely.
> Car manufacturers have their own part standards and their own tools specifically designed to be incompatible with each other and needing special tools that are only available to the manufacturers and certified service partners.
I see a clear difference between not making it easy (using your own standards to make it hard for others) and making it impossible or as close as they can through cryptopgraphy and signed software and not allowing the consumer to get access to those keys for their own devices. In some cases, it may be illegal because of DMCA encryption bypass laws.
There's a difference between custom screw heads, which you can buy parts for but are not commonly available and using a combination of technology and law to make it impossible.
> This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small.
No, not small. Smaller than Apple, but possibly bigger than Steam. On a similar level at least. Epic reported revenues of $4.2 billionin 2019, and was projected to reach revenue of 5 billion in 2020.[2] There's not a lot of good data I can find about Valve's actual revenue, other than estimates from some data that it was ~4.3 billion in 2017 (explained in the Wikipedia article for them), which is then repeated as fact in a few other places.
Keep in mind, they created and control Fortnite, which is still extremely popular.
> This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place.
Well, Apple is preventing them, if they want to offer it to iPhone customers. These are people that bought hardware, own that hardware, and then are told they are not allowed to control what runs on that hardware. I am opposed to this on a consumer rights level, because I don't believe I should be locked out of hardware I purchased. I am also opposed to this on a economic level, where it's adding arbitrary barriers to competition, distorting the market. For multiple reasons, I think allowing practices like this to continue are bad for our society and economy, and I think it needs to change.
Even if I thought Apple had stumbled into this and didn't intend to prevent competition, I think it's problematic enough that it should be specifically legislated to require some third party access, if certain criteria are met. The alternative is to move farther along the path we already have. A decade ago open APIs and cross platform access was the norm. You could us a single application to access almost every single chat platform. Them Apple made iMessage and it was platform specific. Then Google shut down the XMPP gateway for their chat protocol, and made it private. We've somehow gone from a situation where everyone knew you had to interoperate with other companies and protocols to survive, to everyone shutting all the others out and trying to grab as much of the market for themselves, make it too costly and hard to move away, and trap their customers. Are we really better off?
The biggest, most structurally resilient and important products we all use were developed in an age where interoperability was important and needed. HTTP, SMTP, POP and IMAP, IRC. Large companies have been trying to tear those down ever since, because it's less profitable. Now you have to log into Facebook or Instagram to see what most people would post to a blog previously. It's easier, and there's a lot of searchability enhancements, but would it really have been impossible for us to get close to that without the lock-in?
To me, this is all very clear. We're in a new age of large companies using their resources to limit competition and hurt consumers. That they are able to do so without being a monopoly is beside the point. That they are hurting consumers by doing so is. My only hope is that some changes are made before it's too late to turn back, if it isn't already. If it doesn't change, what's debatable as problematic now like this will look downright appetizing in comparison.
1: https://www.drivingline.com/articles/jailbreak-how-to-unlock...
2: https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/06/epic-games-unveils-1-78-b...
But that's talking about Facetime as if it's a product. It's not - it's a feature of iOS, iPadOS and MacOS. Effectively, Facetime isn't free - it's a unlimited use service that is paid for with your initial purchase of your Mac or iOS device and includes a perpetual, transferable license.
I.e. no further innovation is possible?
It is completely voluntary.
You'll find many required open standards in civic engineering and aerospace engineering, and really, any engineering where engineers carry liability. They adapt and change in response to deficiencies discovered.
Your desire to specifically use FaceTime does not make it a monopoly.
What's the difference?
[1] https://www.cryptophone.de . And no, of course not.
/shudder
I’d argue not, as long as users can still achieve the same goal in a different way, and it doesn’t worsen their quality of life.
For instance, in this context, the OP’s mother can still do a phone call, or agree to use a different software - which, by the way, is probably free.
The USA simply isn't a leading innovator in this regard.
Hell, even the different cellular carriers fail this definition because you can't use a Verizon sim card to access AT&T.
The Verizon/AT&T comparison is interesting; because it wasn't so long ago that phones were locked to carriers.
Regulation could and should pry open the private networks of large software companies to facilitate healthy competition.