Good article about apple monopolistic behavior

31

“Apple’s ability to strangle its competitors is unprecedented”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-monopolist-worm-in-apple-11621290094

Comments (31)

31 responses to “Good article about apple monopolistic behavior”

  1. longhorn

    The problem relates to Apple App Store and its rules. Apple took it too far.

    If you don't allow side-loading of applications you can't enforce draconian rules for your store.

    An app should be able to direct a user to its home page so the user can sign up for for example a Spotify subscription without giving Apple a 30 % cut.

    Apple - Think greed.


    • lvthunder

      So the Apple App Store should be run as a charity then? Since you brought up Spotify let's use them as an example. They are a free app so Apple pays for all the bandwidth and hosting for the App and every single update.

      • Paul Thurrott

        Please stop spam commenting. There's no need to make the same (wrong) argument in multiple threads.
      • vladimir

        not as a charity. The app store is for sure heavily subsisdized by the sales of iphones and ipads. Anyway, in my opinion they can charge whatever they want for their own store. The problem is there are no alternatives. Other entities should be allowed to open theirn own stores and compete with them. The second problem is that apple competes unfairly with their own services. It's a bit naive to think that apple pays itself a 30% cut for each subscription to apple music. I am certainly not an expert in anti-trust matters but I guess there are rules to prevent that giant corporations kill every market they enter in by undercutting all competition. If there aren't such rules, there should be.

        • bkkcanuck

          If the App Store is considered a separate product than the iPhone then subsidizing or tieing the one with the other is actually illegal when it comes to international trade.

        • lvthunder

          If you allow ways to get around paying Apple that will mean the App Store is a charity, because no one will be paying for it.


          I actually don't think it's naive to think that Apple pays itself. They charged the same price as their competitors when they entered the market. Spotify would have a valid point if Apple charged customers 30% less when they entered the market, but that's not what happened.

          • longhorn

            Apple doesn't have to give free bandwidth to anyone. Apple just has to allow third party stores, you know like any normal platform.


            Many tech companies don't make much profit or started to become profitable very recently, for example Spotify and Tesla. They can't just take a 30 % loss of revenue. The two examples above survived for many years because investors kept throwing money at them. Smaller businesses won't fare well under a system like that.


          • vladimir

            sorry but I don't follow your "charity" point. Apple can have their own store and charge as much as they want. They could charge 80% and it would be fine with me. However, other entities should be allowed to have their own stores and charge whatever they want and be able to compete with apple. Customers would be able to choose if to use the apple store or any other store. Apple would not have to sustain any cost for the other stores. How would this arrangement configure the apple app store as a charity?

            • lvthunder

              If you allow apps to use their own payment system every app will do that. You will have nothing but free apps in the store that when you go to use them they require a subscription or in-app purchase. That would mean no one would be paying for the App Store. Apple is not going to allow you to sideload apps or create multiple app stores. Just like Nintendo, Microsoft (with XBox), Sony, etc don't either.

  2. Brett Barbier

    I don't understand how Apple's App Store is a monopoly, when Android's marketshare is probably as big or bigger in most/all countries. Android probably has 99.9% of the same apps in the Google Play store.


    Lets say Walgreens sells Spotify gift cards with a fixed percentage of profit. Spotify would rather people buy gift cards directly from them to keep more of the profit. Should Walgreens be forced to allow Spotify to advertise in their stores that they can buy a gift card directly from Spotify?


    Having said the above... I actually DO think Apple should allow for 3rd party payment processing, like they do for non-electronic items purchased via iOS apps. In the Amazon app on an iPhone, an Amazon customer can buy a paper copy of a book using Amazon's payment system, but not a Kindle version of the book. Not to mention apps like Uber, Lyft, ExxonMobil, and newspaper apps, just to name a few off the top of my head.


    I think Apple WILL be pressured to allow 3rd party payments for more things - at a minimum, for categories that they directly compete in, such as music and e-books, like they have for the big video streaming services already.


    I don't think they should be forced to allow 3rd party stores, however.


    • Paul Thurrott

      I can help. They're both monopolies. Are you seriously not aware that antitrust regulators are going after Google as well?
      • Brett Barbier

        I'm aware in general, but thought those were mostly around their advertising business.

        • Paul Thurrott

          There's a whole raft of investigations and charges against Google around the globe, and many are related to Android and the Google Play Store. Plus legal cases, including Epic's, which is almost identical to the one against Apple. No one is ignoring this.
    • wright_is

      Because you can't use the Google Play Store on the iPhone...

    • lvthunder

      People who claim the App Store is a monopoly define the market as iOS apps. I think this is incorrect thinking though.

      • Paul Thurrott

        People who claim the App Store isn't a monopoly define the market as being more than iOS apps. I think this is incorrect thinking though. What matters is what antitrust regulators and the courts think, not what we think.
        • Brett Barbier

          Defining a store in the context of only that store would mean every store is a potential monopoly. I can't demand that Target accept Walmart gift cards, or that CVS accept Walgreens coupons, etc.


          The most likely thing we will see is Apple further loosening the rules surrounding 3rd party payment processing.

  3. pecosbob04

    "What apple is doing is bad for humanity at large"


    Oh Please! Hyperbole much‽


  4. bob_shutts

    You must not be familiar with the App Store. I have my iPad open to Spotify on the App Store right now. There is a bright blue link to the developer’s website. It’s under the information tab.

    • bob_shutts

      The original post is a melange of issues relating to the App Store, side-loading, and what may be contained in an app. My comment was aimed only at the App Store situation.

      • vladimir

        Yes but you are answering to a comment stating that developers should be allowed to have links in the apps, stating that there is a link in the App Store. I’m not sure you get that there is a difference

        • bob_shutts

          My response was to Longhorn. Check the comment trail. The original post was not a melange of issues. longhorn’s comment was all over the place. Peace out.

    • vladimir

      we are taking about links inside the app, not a link to the developer in the app store that no one will ever see. Spotify should be allowed to have a link WITHIN THE SPOTIFY APP. Can we at least be honest about this? Unless you are an apple shareholder, i really don't see the point of the sarcasm. What apple is doing is bad for humanity at large

Leave a Reply