The argument is very simple: due to the dominant position on the overall phone market, Apple uses this power to mess with another market: the mobile app market. And here it is obvious how Apple is issuing bullying tactics to maintain its dominance (Apple TV vs. Netflix, Apple Music vs. Spotify, Apple Pay/iAP vs literally anything).
Wether the US courts come to a similar conclusion as the EU legislators remains to be seen, but there is a precedent
I am not claiming that. I am claiming that Apple has a very dominant position over the most important sales channel lots of companies have to rely on to compete.
Just one example is the at this point famous App Store tax. From a 10$ Apple Music subscription, 9.8$ (lets use these cents for processing) goes to Apple.
For a 10$ Spotify subscription, Spotify makes 7$ after Apple takes their 30% fee. Sure one may say, hey, but Spotify isn't forced to use Apple's service for payments, except they are. Otherwise they loose access to *the* platform most people listen to their music nowadays. Spotify also isn't allow to make Apple subscriptions more expensive and inform users about cheaper subscriptions on their website, because otherwise they'd loose access to the important platform. I guess one can see how this could be considered a abuse of the dominant marked position?
Strictly speaking, for this example past tense would have been fitting. Not because Apple is so generous, but because the EU also considered much of this behavior to be anti-competitive. Hence me wondering if the US courts would be following this line of thinking.
What frustrates me the most is Apple's double dipping. They argue that those fees are required for the development of the platform and technology, pretending as if they didn't already charge a hefty price tag on the products they sell. And in the end, its still the user who is getting screwed. It's not like Spotify or any other provider is eating the platform cost, they charge it up to the user by making their services more expensive.
Also, in their defense in the EU hearings Apple argued that Spotify's success is in large part thanks to the App Store, so it would only be fair for them to pay that amount. The amount of arrogance in that statement is astonishing imho. Developing for a platform is a mutually beneficial relationship, not an altruistic development aid by Apple. What would iPhone sales look like if there was no third party Mail client, no Twitter app and no Instagram or Facebook for their phones?
TD;DR: easy demonstration of how Apple makes more money selling the same product, not because they're more efficient but because they make all the rules.
So Apple has built all the key innovations which make mobile music streaming a viable product, gives it to the biggest music streaming service for free, and then gets slammed because it doesn’t also go out of its way to allow that service to integrate with Apple’s assistant AI product (except when it does build that functionality, the streaming service doesn’t even adopt it!).
Simply absurd logic.
They don’t? This is because of the limitation puts on the App. Apple Music users can easily subscribe thanks to Apple being not negatively affected by its own restrictions.
> while providing all the R&D they use to play audio on the device for free
So you’re saying the developers fees pay for their R&D. So am I with my phone purchase. So I’m simply paying twice. To quote yourself, that is
> Simply absurd logic.
> Apple has built all the key innovations which make mobile music streaming a viable product, gives it to the biggest music streaming service
Have they? Spotify was a thing on the desktop way before it was on iPhone. Apple didn’t invent mp3 and all sorts of other stuff. They built the platform for their phones, no more, no less.
> gives it to the biggest music streaming service for free
It’s not free, quite the opposite. It comes with a steep fee when you sell on their platform.
Just because there’s some reason for why Apple does not make money from Spotify does not invalidate the fact. Meanwhile, your entire argument depended on a false premise.
> Have they? Spotify was a thing on the desktop way before it was on iPhone.
And Rhapsody was on desktop way before Spotify. There’s a reason it didn’t take off.
> It’s not free, quite the opposite. It comes with a steep fee when you sell on their platform.
What steep fee? The one that the biggest music streaming company does not pay? How can a fee be both required and uncollected?
And what do you think the reason for that is?
> while providing all the R&D they use to play audio on the device for free
Simply absurd logic. The device owner paid for their device and the OS. Apple already got their cash bag for it.
It doesn’t matter. I’m not the one whose arguments depend on Apple making money from Spotify.
> The device owner paid for their device and the OS.
I have to assume people writing on Hacker News are not so naive about software business models. The vast majority of software is not sold with a free license to developers to build anything they want packaged with the hardware sale.
As far as I can tell, you don't dispute a single statement in my comment.
> Are you forgetting Apple charges like $1200 for a phone these days?
This is a strawman. iPhone starts at $429 in the US, and there is no law saying companies can only monetize with up-front hardware costs. Such a law would be unprecedented in software.
> Are you suggesting that in order to cover the extensive research and development costs of music playback (sorry did you really say this?)
I didn't say that. I said mobile music playback. Streaming the world's music catalog to a mobile phone reliably with all-day battery life would be unthinkable 17 years ago, and the primary innovator making it happen was Apple, not Spotify. Core Media APIs are simply the tip of the iceberg, yet are widely recognized as best in class by a lot. Android took over a decade to catch up to iOS audio latency in 2013: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2021/03/an-update-....
Remember when Spotify released their take on music playing hardware with Car Thing? They literally couldn't sell their first run of inventory and ended up taking a 8+ figure write down. That project probably cost Spotify more than they've paid Apple in fees in the last decade, yet the Spotify in-car experience is great because of CarPlay, an Apple technology!
> they need to take a 30% cut of every song played on the device?
I made no claims about how much Apple should be paid for this. I simply pointed out that Apple is paid nothing for it by Spotify, yet people still are upset by that.
The reliability of the streaming is more dependent on the internet connection and the quality of Spotify's services. Apple made bluetooth reliable, but most music enthusiasts see Apple's killing of the audio jack (because innovation?... no wait it was greed) was a huge step back for audio quality. Samsung phones have better battery life while Sony has better audio hands down.
> the primary innovator making it happen was Apple
Based on what metric? Apple utilized patents from Nokia, Qualcomm, Sony, etc.
> there is no law saying companies can only monetize with up-front hardware costs.
I didn't say there was. Your assertion that "so Apple makes no money from them while providing all the R&D they use to play audio on the device for free", is what I was responding to. Consumers are paying for that R&D. You strawmanned my strawman... Apple's most popular phone is $999.
> Core Media APIs are simply the tip of the iceberg, yet are widely recognized as best in class by a lot
Best in class by what measure? It's no surprise that when HackerNews attempts to explain the ins and outs of the music industry they start and end with APIs... Have you heard of Beyonce? I promise you Apple's customers don't give a shit about what APIs are used to listen to their music. They'll listen to their music on car speakers. It's completely irrelevant to customers. And the people that really do care about audio quality want cables, which again, Apple killed. The audio latency article you referenced has absolutely no bearing on music playback, it pertains to real-time communications and games with user interaction. Listening to music isn't impacted by this metric, unless you think an extra 80ms after hitting play on Spotify is worth a 30% cut of Spotify's revenue. But somehow I suspect you'll attempt to justify that.
> They created a faux-open market with arbitrary rules that ensure their products always win.
> So what influence are they exerting exactly? Why is it so pernicious?
Which are both answered in the document.
Almost the entire document is defining the performance smartphone market. It’s mentioned in the document 88 times. The definition isn’t “phones over $400” because it’s defined by the market forces that Apple creates - there’s a feedback loop
There is a valid argument to be made here against Apple and how their firm grip is stopping a market from advancing further. But not by using their technical success in creating a great platform.
People usually talk about companies who cannot compete with Apple on fair grounds and then claim foul. Which sounds like they’re trying to punish a company for being successful not for playing unfairly.
Microsoft had over 90% market share of the world's personal computers in the 1990s [2], which I'd also consider dominant... and which did result in some similar antitrust lawsuits.
And if Apple was all about making the better product, why don't they allow the app developers to use their own payment processors. If Apple IAP was so superior to everything else, users and developers alike would surely gladly pay the 20x markup?
But heck, they don't even allow an App developer to tell their users about a cheaper price on their website or why the product is more expensive on iOS.
Wether you like it or not, as soon as a platform becomes as big as iOS or Android, market watchdogs will come to town. And that is good thing, because with competition the user usually profits over the long term.
It’s true when you become as successful as Apple, the rentiers will come knocking. That doesn’t make the rentiers’ case particularly strong or honorable.
You are pretending you cannot build a foundational platform without double dipping, yet they do with macOS.
This seems to imply that iOS is a a good platform for developers, and by extension, the users of Apple's platform.
Then why isn't this happening? Google's platform is not meaningfully different from Apple's in enough ways to actually make me want to switch. Who's shipping an open phone with amazing cameras that match what the iPhone and Galaxy provide, that also allows sideloading without disabling all of Google's nice software features/cloud storage?
Honestly, I am approaching this from another standpoint. Tech has made it more palatable to have walled gardens but battles similar to this have been fought before and the walled gardens have fallen.
I have two solutions for Apple here:
1. Either allow more open participation on your platform.
2. Allow other vendors to write OSes for the iPhone device if you don’t want to open your software.
Without one of these two, the amount of ewaste we’re generating from this hardware is astonishing.
I don’t think Apple the services, should dictate the OS running on Apple the hardware.
At that point, you can run the ecosystem you want. I can choose to run Android, or Linux on this hardware.
And before anyone brings up consoles: yes. This should also apply to consoles.
The entire premise of punishing a company for success when they haven’t violated any laws is insane to me, and I think dangerous to the market because you’ll stifle companies wanting to try new things for fear of someone attacking them for success.
Antitrust means that the consumer has no choice - they do they can buy an android phone. Saying “you can’t use other software inside of apples hardware” is an irrelevant argument, since an alternative to that combination is available.
I'm not clear on what you're implying here, this is a lawsuit, so a punishment will literally only apply if the judge finds Apple in violation of the law.
Is your issue with the law not being 100% specific about this ahead of time? Because I would argue that it's by design - law should lag behind innovation (in both tech and business practices) rather than try to predict and potentially stifle it.
The government is arguing they have violated the laws, that's the entire point of a lawsuit. Apple has become a private regulator in the mobile app space, and the government is correct to break this power.
> I think dangerous to the market because you’ll stifle companies wanting to try new things for fear of someone attacking them for success.
This is the corporate equivalent of "Oh won't someone pleeeeeeeease think of the children". Give me one example where innovation was stifled because of antitrust action. It almost always goes the other way - corporate regulation is broken and small businesses and new ideas are able to flourish in its' absence.
As to your last point - having a single alternative is hardly a flourishing marketplace where the best ideas win. Distributors should not have the power to determine winners in the marketplace, and Apple's private power as a distributor of hardware and mobile apps has become such that they can ensure their own success regardless of whether they innovate or their customers love them.
The EU and their dwarfed tech sector because they’ve made a regulatory environment hostile to business.
This argument boils down to “does the maintainer of a platform have the right to maintain their controlling interest in their own platform if that platform itself is not a monopoly” and I’d argue the answer to that is a firm absolutely.
If I’m raising sheep on my farm it isn’t my duty to provide my land to my neighbor to also raise sheep.
It's more like you providing land to raise sheep, but put your nephew's sheep in the best spots, pushing your customers' sheep where they can't eat so well. So your customer will rightfully complain that you're hurting their business.
High cost for web apps to support iPhone users who expect an app like experience. Android on the other hand makes this very easy in comparison.
Try asking your apps iphone users to go to the share button on safari to install the app.
This is the wrong analogy. If you want to use the feudalism analogy (which I always find appropriate for antitrust discussions), Apple is the Ducal landlord and also owns several farms that compete with their tenants.
Now, in medieval England, you would be right that the landlord has every right to do this. In the modern United States of America, antitrust laws are specifically written to avoid this arrangement. That there is another farm is irrelevant - we have laws to keep the power of landlords in check as a matter of governing philosophy.
For the last 50 years, a pro-consolidation school of thought has formed that specifically precludes enforcement of the laws, but the laws are still on the books that specifically aim to prevent an incestuous relationship between producers and distributors. In Apple's case, they have bundled the App Store and OS in a way that allows them to make the rules of the market and precludes a reasonable degree of competition in a major sector of the economy - it's an obvious target for competent law enforcement to take this type of action.
I don’t think we can look at EU and point at a single thing and say that’s why they have a smaller tech sector. Heck, here’s a random argument I can throw out of nowhere for it: they are far less migrant friendly.
Regulation =/= punishment. Its the government's job to look out for the whole of society, not to make the market as free as possible.
Is Apple going to quit making iPhones then?
Their financial incentive is that they’re effectively the default OS on these devices. How many people are installing Linux or ChromeOS on a laptop that was preinstalled with windows?
What this does mean though is that if Apple makes the consumer experience worse, switching OSes doesn’t mean buying a new phone. It means reinstalling with a third party OS.
Great, I'd like that too. So let's work with the regulators to make that happen!
Modern Samsung phones are very good. You’re asserting that Apple should be punished purely because they make good hardware and are successful - and if their hardware wasn’t good and competitive then you wouldn’t care.
Part of why I have Apple devices as a tech enthusiast is the good software and the ecosystem that comes with it.
Would I like to run an IDE and code on an iPad? Absolutely. But I’d rather have the iPad than the android tablet.