To give you an idea of hypothetical regulation scenario: You want to move to an Android app. Sure you gotta need to change your phone as well. This is likely much more expensive then the app itself, thus it may make Android/iOS apps non-interchangeable. If FTC finds that this is expensive enough so most people won't make such move even if Apple decides to considerably increase the app store tax, then the App Store itself is a relevant market thus monopoly.
We don't know the legal conclusion since FTC hasn't done such study (this is a very complex process that takes several years with huge uncertainties, this is why politicians prefer direct regulation via legislation), but many experts believe that Apple is not in a very safe position.
There are 2 dominating app stores:
- Google/Android app store
- IOS app store
They have a duopoly in the mobile market, and they each have a monopoly on their platform. The deli comparison is asinine since there are millions of delis vs 2.
No, Apple is literally hard coded to be the only app store on iOS. You can not install apps not from the app store, and you cannot install other app stores. Installing your app every week by paying $99/year to be a developer is not a viable alternative.
On Android you could install another app store within the next 2 minutes if you so desired.
This is the perfect definition of a misleading argument.
But yes, I agree that Google's strategy is more open, and they allow others to use the Android source code to make their own (Amazon app store, Microsoft, etc).
Apple is more of a walled garden and a strict monopoly on their platform (and hardware).
This is in the works, right. It's not possible at this moment, is it.
How will Apple prevent people in the USA from buying iPhones in Europe and bringing them back to the US.
To lure US customers, app developers could offer lower prices to users who sideload, to offset the higher price paid for iPhones in the EU. App developers selling to EU iPhone owners will be able to avoid the 30% Apple tax and can pass on the savings to customers. Developers could offer more features to users who sideload. There are a variety of possible incentives developers could offer to lure users away from Apple App Store. That is assuming developers see the long term benefit of getting people to stop using the App Store and avoiding the Apple tax.
So app developers should bear the brunt of Apple's hardware price strategy? Seems unfair.
One of the complaints about Apple from app developers is the cost of doing business on the App Store (15% or 30% or whatever it is this week). So you're suggesting app developers charge less for side loaded apps: isn't that just accepting that the apple fees are fair?
I'm pretty sure I cannot sideload on iOS, unless you count using a free developer account to load self-compiled applications whose certificates are only valid for a few days.
There are several ways to install apps that do not go through the app store.
Your company can have an enterprise certificate that allows in-house apps to be run on company devices without needing to go through the app store approval process or the app store. You are not supposed to use that enterprise certificate to publish apps to the general public, although companies have been caught doing so in the past.
If you have a paid developer account, you can test your own apps on devices owned by your company and your customers.
Anyone can get a free Apple Developer account that allows you to test apps on your own device.
I don't recall sideloading ever being a thing iOS started out with. There was a trivial jailbreak and very easy third party app store install for jailbroken devices, but that was essentially a defect and not something iOS was designed for.
You can’t have it both ways.
You don't have to be "a developer" to install, for instance, the sort of retro-gaming emulator you use to play classic console games. You just need a free developer account Apple ID.
> Through an app called AltStore, you can install emulators onto your phone through a method called sideloading. If you're unfamiliar with the term, sideloading is installing software without using the App Store.
https://www.pocketgamer.com/next-level-gaming/how-to-install...
Secondly, Apple severely limits the capabilities of sideloaded applications - those emulators for example aren't allowed to make use of JIT, or Just-In-Time compilation, which is extremely important for decent emulation. This is also the main reason nobody has even tried to bring over a non-Safari browser using this method - you practically need it to have a browser that's decently usable.
It's practically useless outside of development purposes. AltStore is a pile of (very impressive) hacks to get around a system that's crippled by design.
Compare and contrast to Android, where the only difference between the Play Store and a regular application is that the Play Store doesn't get the regular installation window (something which is set to change in the next version of Android, so that alternate stores can also request this permission).
Either way - this doesn't matter. The Digital Services Act has already been passed in the EU, and Apple is going to have to offer third parties proper access to iOS without being allowed to gatekeep the App Store.
This is goalpost moving. The original claim was that it was impossible to sideload apps.
It doesn't nullify the app permissions system, but it's definitely sideloading.
To argue that the existence of Cydia means that “Apple started out with side-loading” is intellectually dishonest. I know it, and I know that you know it. If you have a real argument, you shouldn’t need to resort to this.
People like me who aren't programmers, or even power users anymore.
> I know it, and I know that you know it.
A long time ago I used to modify the Windows ME registry, and it genuinely created some features doing so. Then they removed this windows-altering ability from the particular feature I was modding and my mods were useless. Maybe the MS programmers saw this as a bug being fixed, but I saw it as a feature being removed. I basically haven't been a Windows power user since ME because of stuff like this.
-----
Nothing Apple is doing is materially different from what Microsoft was sued for in the 90s by anti-trust enforcers. In fact, it's a bit more, because it just isn't a default browser, it's control of every app. Apple's share of the US market is just slightly less than Microsoft's was at the time.
Better start working today because you’re gonna need to put in like 50 years.
It would take billions of dollars and 50+ years of development to have a chance. You would also need phone partners, which wouldn't go with a small OS maker. So you'd need to make the phones + the OS + the app store.
A deli can start anywhere with ~$10k and they'll have clients if they're good enough.
It's not feasible to compete with Android + IOS, even Microsoft and Amazon failed.
They therefore have a duopoly of the mobile app store market.
Every behemoth company you see today did not start out that way. Apple was a couple guys in a garage. At that time, IBM was almost 100 years old, had revenues in the tens of billions and was sending hardware and software into outer space with government contracts. Guess how that company started out?
It’s also revealing that you think $10K is a low barrier to entry to a risky business with razor thin margins. And it’s also quite hard work, in terms of physical labor and ongoing time commitment. Most of my life that kind of lump sum was unthinkable, and I have to imagine it still is for many. Yet even in the face of that, some people do find a way.
They should do so with smartphones as well, if they feel strongly about it. I think the scales match in terms of barrier to entry to expertise if you want to compare delis and smartphone manufacturing.
I think the problems with your comparison are at least twofold:
1) it’s much much easier, in a technical sense, to start a deli vs manufacture a smartphone. Just in Apple, there have been tens to hundreds of millenia of person-time poured into the company.
and 2) most people with the expertise necessary to do so are happy with the options available today and would rather spend their time solving other as-yet unsolved problems.
Microsoft actually lost an antitrust lawsuit for doing something extremely similar to what Apple is doing.
> Explorer web browser with the Windows operating system, which made it difficult for other web browsers to gain market share. Additionally, Microsoft was accused of engaging in exclusionary contracts with computer manufacturers to prevent them from pre-installing competing web browsers and of engaging in other anti-competitive practices.
Remind you of anything?
What Epic wants to do is have their game store on multiple OSes produced by other companies and then call the shots on those. I actually think they are closer to the spirit of what MS was doing, and given the chance they would leverage any advantageous market position they could achieve (or run to the courts) to shape OS customers’ UX in a fashion that is more similar to what MS did.
Apple wants a sandbox in the world; Epic and MS want the world to be their sandbox. If Apple’s sandbox becomes dominant it will be de facto because of people choosing to use a better competing product; Epic’s and MS’ actions are attempts to create a de jure dominant sandbox.
That we should punish success?
That is a great bullshit whataboutism argument.
Nobody speaks about punishing success here.
Apple and Google de facto Monopoly on the app store gives them a 30% tax on everything that wants to live on the mobile ecosystem.
This is the problem here. And this is what Epic was fighting against.
It's actually a patent minefield.
Nobody is entitled to have an abuseable level of market dominance simply because they worked hard.
Of course it's hard to prove consumer harm when there's so much vertical integration from day one. There's no before to compare it to.
Perhaps if Apple is forced to allow sideloading and other stores in Europe then the harms will be more obvious and comparable.
That's precisely the point. In order for Apple to have abused their monopoly, you would need to point to a change in their business model which occurred during the period in which they held nominal monopoly status.
Epic couldn’t point to any new “abusive” behaviour between when Apple was a ~1% market share minnow to when they became a ~50% market share behemoth. This is critical. In order to abuse a monopoly, you need to have abused your monopoly.
Phone operating systems are the malls, and for the vast bulk of us, unfortunately the only areas in the city zoned to have commercial app buildings.
None of this has the consumer at heart at all.
If you try to create a third mobile platform to compete, you will fail. We know this because of Microsoft and Amazon's failed attempts at making phone OSes. In Amazon's case, they actually used the same OS Google did, but Google refused to support it. And you can't legally port licenses over from Google Play to get Google's apps running on Fire OS. So the Fire Phone - a phone running Google's OS with Amazon's tweaks - could not use any Google apps. Anything on a Google service had to be used through the web browser. Windows Mobile was even worse: nobody wanted to support it natively. And again, you can't sell something that isn't an iPhone or Google-blessed Android that lets you buy App Store or Google Play apps and run them.
This is the same situation for everything else, too. Amazon has a monopoly on books because Kindle and Audible books cannot be copied onto non-Amazon devices or reader apps. So nobody wants to buy books outside of Amazon's platform, because it'll split their collections. Nintendo spends extraordinary amounts of time and effort legally harassing anyone who publicly uses their games on non-Nintendo hardware. Same for Sony and Microsoft.
To bring this back to your deli thing, imagine if you weren't allowed to have your deli's wine and other wine in the same apartment. There's chips in the wine bottles that will poison the wine if you do that, and there's a federal law prohibiting you from removing the chip, and prohibiting even discussing how to remove the chip. So you can switch wine stores, but you have to throw out all your wine that you already have. That is the current situation of software distribution as a consumer in 2023.
but apple wasn't the one preventing these from succeeding. they failed on their own. On the other hand, it is reasonable to conclude that Netscape didn't fail on their own, but that Microsoft _prevented_ netscape from gaining marketshare by preloading a competing browser; such a preloading can only have occurred with a monopoly on operating systems.
Therefore, the monopoly abuse was to leverage its monopoly position in one market, to prevent competition a different market.
So despite the fact that I also hate the appstore and walled gardens, apple _did not_ use their apple device dominance to _prevent_ android versions of an app from existing/competing.
The complaint about walled gardens from people is that of lack of open access - not that of monopoly.
I suspect that new laws needs to be introduced to break open walled gardens - i want to call these "interoperability" laws. It's in the interest of society for systems to be interoperable.
This will not only concern apple devices, but things like EV charging networks, computer networks, and data interchange apis, and digital ownership of data. Imagine if by purchasing a CD or DVD, you are only allowed to play that disk on an authorized device! Now imagine instead of a physical disk, you buy a digital "disk" - a game, or music - but you're locked into the vendor's platform!
Is Apple a monopoly by the same definition that Windows was a monopoly? The answer is definitely no. Android has a larger global market share and it's far more accessible than iPhones in terms of pricing. Apple's US market share is in the 55-60% range depending on the source. Windows market share in 1988 when the suit began was about 90% so it's much clearer.
> The complaint about walled gardens from people is that of lack of open access - not that of monopoly.
100% this. People are just using the monopoly label because they're looking for some excuse why this shouldn't be allowed. But the reality is that probably >99% of Apple users do not care about any of this.
“Interoperability” laws are dangerous because they require lawyers to legislate how code works, and they’re not engineers. It’s in the interest of society to be interoperable , but at what costs and tradeoffs? Do I have to register my new network protocol with the Bureau of Interop Standards? If I make too much money on my platform, must I eventually cede control of that platform to a government-led utility commission? These would be nightmares and the unintended consequences of forcing laws to over-regulate how our technology platforms work and would dramatically hurt innovation.
You mention EV networks but this is a great example of the benefits of not forcing interop too soon: by far the most reliable EV charging network is Tesla’s, which has forced competition to up their game and forced competitive car brands to invest in networks. On the other hand, The CCS fast DC charging standard is a bulky design by committee standard that extended the old J1772 standard from 20 years ago. It’s inferior to Tesla’s NACS in terms of communications speeds, ease of use (NACS is far less bulky) and performance in cold weather. But we’ll have to live with it. It was a premature standard but has only minor deficiencies, luckily. EV networks themselves don’t have forced interop on the billing level and we have a handful of apps with different payment methods, some with plug and charge, some not, it’s not very intuitive. But unless you force a utility experience prematurely this is life in an evolving market.
Way to drill that category all the way down to IOS to ensure that you're able to use that "monopoly" keyword.
The deli that's in my complex has a monopoly on buying and obtaining wine if i don't want to drive anywhere or use a phone to order some via some delivery app.