In the suit, originally filed in late 2011, a group of consumers accused Apple of monopolizing the market for iPhone apps by not allowing any other way of purchasing such apps, and therefore engaging in anti-competitive practices. The suit alleges that since the App Store’s launch, Apple “illegally monopolized the distribution of iPhone apps, and that the commissions charged to app developers inflate the prices consumers ultimately pay for apps.”
I just don’t agree with this at all. Apple is providing a safe place for developers to sell apps, and for consumers to buy apps without wondering about malware and all of the other scams that go on out there.
It’s a rubbish lawsuit. And Rob Glaser tried to make a similar argument about allowing RealAudio on iPods.
I don’t think you know what “anti-trust” is about. It has nothing to do with a “safe place” for devs to sell and consumers to buy
Two points: 1. Antitrust does not prohibit the mere existence of controlled, curated, “walled garden” platforms. If Apple had ever allowed developers to sideload uncurated apps, and then started making it more difficult to do that, then there could be an antitrust case there. But that never happened. 2. The biggest problem with sideloading isn’t security and malware — it’s that it enables rampant, casual piracy. Just visit an overseas website that has DRM-stripped copies of all the apps, then sideload them onto your iPhone. Only the most saintly 0.01% of users would pay for apps if their friends are using every app for free. The thriving iOS software market would be ruined.
The numbers on piracy tell a different story. You can fairly easily download virtually any song, television show, or film for free (and your friends may have done), yet the vast majority of people still pay for them. Most people don’t steal, and will pay a fair price for things of value to them.
Apple is on thin ice here. The bottom line is the ONLY way to sell an app on the Apple store is through Apple’s store and by giving them a large cut. That’s a total monopoly on sales on the platform. Not good.
Now, Apple has reasons for this besides cash, and they could point to Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft with their consoles (you can’t sell a game for those systems without their approval and by giving them a cut), and say this is the similar. Problem, of course, is console manufacturers still allow different stores to sell the games, rather than just through their own stores, unlike Apple.
Further, imagine if say Ford, GM, etc. made it so you could ONLY get parts for their cars from them, through their stores, for “safety reasons”, eliminating all competition from places like Napa or AutoZone. And, even if they don’t make the part, they must approve it and take a 30% cut from the supplier. People would lose their shit and the government would act. Apple is doing exactly this in a virtual space, and you could argue that the car manufacturers have a better safety argument than Apple.
The best solution is for Apple to allow side loaded apps sold by others, but require an authentication of some type, the way the console manufacturers do with games for their systems. Apple would then have to sell the app store as the “best” way to get apps and let its quality, curation, ease of use, and safety draw customers. Imagine how much better, and how much more quickly, the app store would have improved had it had actual competition.
Heck, having the ability for devs to sell their apps themselves, or through other means, might bring back some life to paid apps, as the app store drowns in “freemium”.
Apple’s retail stores don’t sell computers made by Acer, HP, and Dell, nor smartphones made by LG, HTC, and Samsung. They sell HomePod, but not Echo or Google’s Echo-alike. Is that a “not good” monopoly? Is Apple on “thin ice” with that, practically violating antitrust law because brick-and-mortar computer stores should maximize consumer choice by carrying a wide variety of different brands? How far can that argument go? I hope the courts find a clear line of what antitrust law is and isn’t supposed to do, rather than acting on a subjective feeling that Apple’s become too successful and just needs to be reined-in.
Jim isn’t saying the two are somehow related. It is a separate point all together.
Really, anyone who would prefer this should just quit Apple. I hate it but accept that it is the price of using an iPad. That’s why my phone is android, because there are some apps I use that will never be approved in the Appstore. I don’t use those apps on my tablet however, which is why I use an iPad. When you use Apple products, you sort of have to accept that Apple will make decisions for you. If you want to make your own decisions, use Android.
Also, because an alternative (android) exists in the marketplace, Apple does not have a natural monopoly and can do what it wants. If Apple was 90’s era Microsoft then maybe this lawsuit would have had a chance of succeeding.
Shouldn’t you be saying that to the people who filed the suit?
The issue is that iOS isn’t the entire market. There is competition in Android and the other mobile OSs.
Inflate the prices?
What, the average price of $.88 [Statista prices for May 2018] is too high?
“The bottom line is the ONLY way to sell an app on the Apple store is through Apple’s store and by giving them a large cut”
And yet it’s possible to sell apps for iOS without using Apple’s store – and naturally “the market for phone apps” is not the same as “iOS”.
Sideloading is possible. Independent stores are possible.
They’re just not competitive because no customers want or care about that.
Huh? I think you’re thinking of Android. What you’re describing is not possible on iOS. You can’t sideload apps or set up and run independent app stores.
You’re not using a accurate analogy. If there was literally no other place to sell computers besides at the Apple Store, as is the case with the app store, you can believe not selling products from other competitors would be a MAJOR issue, but lockout from the app store is not the question. No one is complaining (some do, but not in this legal case) that they’re locked out of the store.
The complaint is the ONLY way to offer an app for iOS is through the app store and by paying Apple 30%. This effectively locks out all competition and absolutely leads to higher prices on apps when you must factor in the 30% cut. That may be worth it to you for the benefits the store provides, but that should be a considered choice, not a requirement.
In this case, that doesn’t matter. If you want to sell apps on iOS, you have no alternative. iOS has dominated the app space in terms of paid app revenue and profit. It’s a massive market unto itself and Apple maintains a total monopoly on how apps are sold on the platform. This nets them billions of dollars. This is not, as Jim suggests, a purely altruistic move on Apple’s part.
What I don’t understand is why so many Apple/iOS users are uniformly against competition in this space. It would only improve the app store, much like Android forced Apple to rapidly improve iOS. More choice here is better for us, and is in our best interest. It’s only in Apple’s best interest to maintain the monopoly on app sales.
That’s due to the ridiculously shitty freemium model that has taken over the app store. The freemium model, the “race to the bottom” was driven largely by the terribly algorithms Apple used to promote apps and the charts, which rewarded such things, and basically punished quality paid apps. It was also, as they admitted, partially driven by the devs desires to avoid the 30% cut. The app store has not done users much favors in these areas.
“I just don’t agree with this at all. Apple is providing a safe place for developers to sell apps, and for consumers to buy apps without wondering about malware and all of the other scams that go on out there.”
That’s not what the suit is about. It’s about making this the exclusive avenue of installing applications on your device. And while iOS is not a monopoly in OS share, the arguments about iOS having the vast, vast majority of app sales volume may work against Apple in this case.
It very much matters in terms of the law. There is no requirement that companies allow anyone to interact with their product in any way they want.
How would it improve the App Store? Conversely I think many of us could come up with way it would harm the App Store. Some might even point to the sad state of the Mac App Store (where there is no lock-in to the App Store). I would also argue that a significant reason the iOS App Store is so dominant is that it maintains the walled garden in a way that users prefer (or at least are willing to spend more money on).
“You can fairly easily download virtually any song, television show, or film for free”
Yes and no; you can certainly get sued for it (when using Bittorrent and such) and many people have been, so that’s quite a deterrent and not unlikely to be a reason people “pay a fair price for things”.
I see. Although movies, video games, tv shows, etc. are easily available to download for free, you think people are largely deterred from doing so because they may get caught and have to pay a price, which is the primary reason they purchase them legally. Yet, you believe that apps for iOS will be freely pirated with no such fears if there were any other way to purchase them for your phone other than through Apple’s own store.
I can’t say I agree with either of your suppositions, but okay.
I never said any such thing about that second part. I only responded with a specific point about one specific statement of yours.
“In this case, that doesn’t matter. If you want to sell apps on iOS, you have no alternative.”
Yes, and if you want to sell your PC in Apple’s gorgeous, high-traffic retail stores, you also have “no alternative.” Just making sure I understand this: My analogy is bad and yours is good, because you tacked the phrase “if you want to sell apps on iOS” in front of yours?