Tim Cook on Antitrust Investigations: 'There is No Monopoly Here' (imore.com) 151
In an interview, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that big companies deserve scrutiny and that he has no issue with Apple being investigated for antitrust issues stating. But at Apple, he said, "there is no monopoly here." From a report: In an interview, Cook stated that he had "no issue" with Apple's being put under investigation, but fervently stated that he believed that once lawmakers heard Apple's story, they would see that the company did not have a monopoly. "I think that big companies deserve scrutiny. And I think that's not only fair but important for the system that we have in America. And so I have no issue at all in Apple being put underneath the microscope and people looking and probing. My hope is that as people heard our story and as they continue to hear our story that it will become as apparent to them as it is to us that we have no monopoly. There is no monopoly here," he said.
"We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution to not liking their business practices is to stop doing business with them, not to treat the government like attack dogs to be sicced on anyone you don't like. There isn't a market that Apple is in that doesn't have a healthy amount of competing options.
Cook is an idiot for making a statement at all though. Anyone previously unconvinced will not be swayed but now there are people discussing the topic for no other reason than he brought it up. It's akin to standing in the public square and boldly proclaiming that you are not a rapist. Even if it's true it won't get anyone to like you more than they already did and will just leave people with some kind of lingering suspicion that you might be lying.
Re:"We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a monopoly on access to Apple users for various services. Once those users choose Apple hardware, they are (needlessly) locked into a whole bunch of Apple services.
I'll follow that argument when they've moved completely to their own chips and locked their bootloader on their computers. So next year.
Re: (Score:3)
This is about the iPhone and iPad where the bootloader is already locked.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has a monopoly on access to Apple users for various services.
Do you know how petty that sounds, a monopoly on access to your own customers?
Slashdot has a monopoly on access to Slashdot users, and I can't place my own ads without going through Slashdot's advertising business.
Once a user chooses Slashdot, they are locked into Slashdot because they can't get Slashdot's services somewhere else.
So they are stuck with the Slashdot ad monopoly.
- Jealous Website Operator and Slashdot Competitor
To be fair, MAYBE you have a real argument in there somewhere for b
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has a monopoly on access to Slashdot users, and I can't place my own ads without going through Slashdot's advertising business.
No but Slashdot is not big, and their users go to many sites and other than slash dot, however say google decided to ban your ads or refuse to link to your web site, then you would have a real problem, it could quite easily break an internet based business.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a monopoly on access to Apple users for various services.
Every business has a monopoly on "access" to their customers.
Also, why should you have "access" to their customers?
Re:"We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, yeah? You mean if Michelin wants to sell tires to Ford owners they need to get Ford's permission AND must only sell to those people through the Ford store?
Re: (Score:2)
Tires and most common replacement parts are not restricted, but if a 3rd party wanted to make software that runs on Ford's engine computer, security systems, or In-Vehicle entertainment... that developer absolutely Would need Ford's approval and support for it to be possible.
Just like in a Tesla vehicle Its likely that 3rd parties would be straight up Not allowed to develop any apps in the first place, but if they were allowed to sell an App to run on Ford's in-vehicle entertainment/Infosystems...
Re: (Score:2)
Except none of what you are suggesting car manufacturers 'could' do is illegal. Having a monopoly, per se, is not illegal. Being 'restrictive' is not illegal. What IS illegal is being anti-competitive.
None of your examples have anything to do with anti-competitive behavior. How would a company that sells software that runs on the ECU be 'competing' with Ford, when Ford itself does not sell such software? Therefore, Ford is not being 'anti-competitive' by not supporting them.
On the other hand, anyone wh
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew that ECUs in Fords are blank.
Oh wait, it turns out Ford is selling such software, bundled with the purchase of a vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
ECU software is not a product priced and sold by Ford. Since it is not a separate product it can't be bundled. Don't be such a dumbass.
Re:"We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Every business has a monopoly on "access" to their customers.
Once I purchase a product, I own it.
This has been the law for over a century.
Big companies have started pushing “licensing” as a means to usurp private property rights, and what do you know, they’re meeting resistance.
Something you should be very happy about.
Re:"We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:5, Insightful)
...What does Apple have a monopoly on though? Almost anything you could care to list could likely be responded to with "And Ford has a monopoly on Ford Mustangs."...
Dude, does Ford "force" the user to have "FORD" tires? "FORD" oil? "FORD" ...?
If the answer to all of these is "YES", then you have a point; else go familiarize yourself with how Apple works then come back here.
Re: (Score:2)
...What does Apple have a monopoly on though? Almost anything you could care to list could likely be responded to with "And Ford has a monopoly on Ford Mustangs."...
Dude, does Ford "force" the user to have "FORD" tires? "FORD" oil? "FORD" ...?
If the answer to all of these is "YES", then you have a point; else go familiarize yourself with how Apple works then come back here.
You have your pick of third party iPhone cases and chargers too. So is a tire the right thing to compare to an App Store, or a phone case?
What does "force" mean? Ford does not have to use universal engine mounts, do the electronics have to be modular, does anything really need to be modular or replaceable by law? Could oil or other fluids be integrated into a machine in a way they can't be replaced without damage, legally?
There's a consumer rights angle to this all, and some good arguments to be made the
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:5, Insightful)
What does Apple have a monopoly on though? Almost anything you could care to list could likely be responded to with "And Ford has a monopoly on Ford Mustangs."
Ford is not allowed, at least in Europe, to stop third-party manufacturers from making compatible Mustang parts. They are not even allowed to void your warranty for installing third-party Mustang parts. They are most certainly not allowed to require all third-party manufacturers to only sell their Mustang parts through the Ford-store, taking 30% of the profits.
Re:"We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's why Cook's statement is a red herring.
Antirust law is not only about monopolies. It's about abusing market power. Monopolies are one obvious way to do that, but there are many many more practices that antitrust regulates. Price fixing. Restraints of trade. Collusion. Price signaling. Tying or bundling arrangements. You don't have to have any kind of monopoly to run afoul of those rules.
Apple may have reason to be confident that their business practices will pass antitrust scrutiny. But "We don't have a monopoly" is not one of them. When a cop pulls you over for speeding, saying "But I used my turn signal!" doesn't cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not even allowed to void your warranty for installing third-party Mustang parts.
Same for iPhones kind of. nothing really prevents a technician with the right knowledge replacing a cracked screen with a 3rd party glass sheet.
A more accurate equivalent to "Apps" would be the actual applications that run on a car's infotainment center... and vehicles DO start to have the ability to run many apps, but the car manufacturer do have control over which apps are allowed or not - As soon as code has
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, the thing that is illegal is anticompetitive behavior. There is no market for infotainment center apps. Nobody, including the manufacturers, is selling them. There is no law that says you must allow a market to be developed around your product. Where there is no market, there can't be anticompetitive behavior.
There is however a market, worth billions of dollars, in selling IOS apps. Preventing access to that market is anticompetitive.
Re: (Score:2)
This is so spectacularly wrong, it's jaw dropping. Have you not heard of Android Auto or CarPlay? They are competing infotainment center apps. Car manufacturers absolutely do have the final say as to whether a consumer can run them. Many cars are not compatible, because manufacturers want you to use their shitty infotainment systems instead -- because they see this (woeful) experience as an integral part of their brand.
Re: (Score:2)
Ford does not have a monopoly on Ford Mustangs, just like Apple does not have a monopoly on phones, however once you buy a Mustang, Ford has a monopoly on keys for Mustangs, that is why they charge insane prices replacement keys. A few years ago I tried to get replacement key outer, not even the inside electronics, a piece of plastic, and metal $200. A spare key for my Honda Jazz was $400 2% of the value of the car new, I could get an alarm system with 2 keys fitted for that price. Why was the price so high
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Non adware phones, Google services are just adware in disguise. There is a qualitative difference between Android with google services phones on one side and iPhones and their irrelevant competitors like Sailfish OS phones on the other.
Through no fault of Apple, they own almost the entire market for non adware mobile phones. Sailfish and others are the equivalent to Linux on the desktop in Microsoft's anti-trust time, except Microsoft never owned that much of their market.
Re: "We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does Apple have a monopoly on though?
Distribution of third party software to iPhones.
Almost anything you could care to list could likely be responded to with "And Ford has a monopoly on Ford Mustangs."
A good analogy is Ford creating a third party market for add-ons and replacement hardware provided by tens of millions of unaffiliated third party vendors and then preventing any of these vendors from selling any of their products thru anyone except Ford. In the real world you couldn't get away with that. You shouldn't be able to in computer land either.
The solution to not liking their business practices is to stop doing business with them, not to treat the government like attack dogs to be sicced on anyone you don't like.
I disagree. This business practice is harming others by unfairly distorting market for software distribut
Re: (Score:3)
and the lawmakerrs will also surely realise this once they read our story, written in small writing on $100 bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we need independent review.
Oddly enough most people don't wake up and plan on how to do evil things. They take steps on what they think is right, however they are so caught up in their own sense of justice, right and wrong, who are their friends and enemies. That they actually in sum create evil.
I am sure Apple thinks they are doing good things, creating products that people want, being competitive with others to get your product across.
There are people who are against you, where you can do not
Re: "We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:3)
Re: "We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:4, Interesting)
Company towns are not monopolies either
Geographically, they are monopolies (and also monopsonies).
Apple dominates no market anywhere.
despite being the only place to turn to for all your needs.
A coal miner needs a job much more than a Millennial needs an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple dominates no market anywhere.
Apple is more than 50% of the market in the US. This makes it mandatory for mobile app developers to support iOS.
Re: "We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:4, Insightful)
This makes it mandatory for mobile app developers to support iOS.
No... It does not make it mandatory. It makes it compelling to capitalize on iOS, but its not mandatory. Developers could ignore iOS, and even Android, build their app as a mobile website using HTML5, or build their app on top of Java or a custom phone OS, and make the product they will be selling a Phone that includes a custom OS and their app.. just like app developers used to have to do to sell an app Before iOS.
It does however mean that their upfront costs and barriers to entry would be much lower and ability to mass-market an app to consumers would be much greater if they do support iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And if your app supports payments _anywhere_ then Apple will demand a 30% cut.
Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are lying. My last three companies made a lot of money from iOS without any adverts, and none of them paid a penny to Apple. Apple got a 30% cut of nothing. Netflix for example does the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t think Apple being a monopoly is necessarily the issue. Rather, I think that Apple engages in illegal tying.
You don’t have to be a monopoly for some of the company’s practices to be illegal and/or deserving of regulation.
Sabotaging third party repairs, “voiding warrantees” for jailbreaking, and requiring all software be purchased from a particular source, for instance.
These are all potential violations of Moss-Magnuson, monopoly or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is more than 50% of the market in the US. This makes it mandatory for mobile app developers to support iOS.
One of the biggest, or the biggest, gaming company (Epic) just told the world that you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Do those still exist in 2020 this sound like something from the 1800's.
Where I live they are town dominated by a particular company. However they have stores and restaurants that are privately owned. As well most people have Automobiles so they can travel to different towns rather easily.
This was a bigger problem before the Automobile because going to the next town could take many hours out of your day. And if you worked for such company, chances are you wouldn't be able to get to the store in the next tow
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if the App Store is a monopoly or not. I do know it's a complete non-story for a CEO to say his company is doing nothing wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
But you may use your phone to start your car, they control your TV, they work with video game consoles, they connect to the internet, and some old people actually use their phones to call people, weird huh.
This is probably more akin to Microsoft Anti-Trust as while they are alternatives, not going with Apple may put you at a disadvantage. The only saving grace between Microsoft in 2000 vs Apple in 2020 is that they are more people using Android than Apple. And developers tend to make apps for both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is side loading that is a choice on your device, Apple should be free to promote the merits of not side loading, put up big warnings saying you risk the security of the device allowing random apps to be loaded on it. But in the end it should be the customer's choice, not apples it is their device, apple should be able to say you got infected not our problem as long as they don't intentionally break apps that are side loaded. I would like to know what percentage of android apps are side loaded? I c
Re: "We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:2)
Re: "We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:4, Insightful)
But I pay Apple to make sure no one does anything on my phone I would otherwise be uncomfortable with.
You mean like telling you what apps you can snd can’t run on y own computer? You mean like slowing the phone down because the company thinks you’ve used it long enough and they want you to buy a new one?
Or do you actually believe they did it “for your benefit”, and the Android manufacturers are simply negligent for not slowing their user’s phones down?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you care what somebody else does with their phone?
Because I make money when you use it a certain way, I will try to force you to use it that way.
The fact that I offer no compensation to you for this restriction will generally invalidate any “contract” that you sign, because contracts require consideration, and that consider an cannot be illusory (your benefit cannot be vague such as “the ability to sue the product”).
Mobile has been getting away with questionable behavior for
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple allowed side-loaded apps, every single developer in Apple's App Store that *could* circumvent it for profiting off the data collection Apple's store prevents would do so, and I wouldn't have the choice of, say, a Facebook app that did not track my browsing information,
If you're that concerned with privacy, set this discussion aside for a moment and get off Facebook now
requested access to my contacts that I could block,
Doesn't the OS require you to grant permissions the first time the app requests them? That's how Android works. The Play Store tells you what permissions the app uses, but you still have to grant each permission the first time the app attempts to access those resources.
and so on and so fourth. Being the only way in forces developers to play nice. Given an alternative unrestricted path onto phones, developers would run rampant with privacy infringement, and spy-ware riddled apps for a few more bucks.
Again, see previous comments re: permissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the OS require you to grant permissions the first time the app requests them? That's how Android works. The Play Store tells you what permissions the app uses, but you still have to grant each permission the first time the app attempts to access those resources.
On Android, I download a fart app (I love fart apps), launch it, and it tells me it needs access to my address book. I know have the choice: Give my data away, or don't use the fart app. Most users make the stupid decision and give their data away.
On iOS, the fart app developer sends his app to Apple for review, and Apple asks: "Why do you need access to the user's address book?" Fart app developer has no good explanation, so Apple says "remove access to the address book from your code, and submit it aga
Re: "We've investigated ourselves..." (Score:2)
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act
Re: (Score:2)
They have a HUGE monopoly in the MacOS, iOS, iPadOS application industry. Name one other company that has an iOS app store.
Re: (Score:3)
They have a HUGE monopoly in the MacOS, iOS, iPadOS application industry. Name one other company that has an iOS app store.
it is very explicit in US law that a "natural" monopoly like this (Apple's monopoly on MacOS, Ikea's monopoly on Ikea stores) doesn't count if you want to complain about anti-competitive behaviour. So what you are saying is not clever but totally irrelevant.
Where’s install from third party sources opt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Where’s install from third party sources (Score:3)
Re: Where’s install from third party source (Score:2)
The difference is money. If your smart tv charged users to download apps or collected a tax off of every in-app purchase, then they your smart tv or Tesla should allow side loading apps too.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is money. If your smart tv charged users to download apps or collected a tax off of every in-app purchase, then they your smart tv or Tesla should allow side loading apps too.
Given that there are literally thousands of counterexamples to these sorts of unfounded assertions, I'm at a loss as to why I keep seeing them.
Most obviously, how do you explain game consoles? They're closed systems with distribution strictly controlled by the manufacturers. Want to publish an app for their platforms, either as a download or on a disc? You've always needed to be properly licensed, gone through their approval processes, and given them a cut of the sale. Are you telling me that regulators hav
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is money. If your smart tv charged users to download apps or collected a tax off of every in-app purchase, then they your smart tv or Tesla should allow side loading apps too.
Given that there are literally thousands of counterexamples to these sorts of unfounded assertions, I'm at a loss as to why I keep seeing them.
Agreed. It is entirely possible to violate antitrust laws by giving something away for free. Case in point: Microsoft Internet Explorer. :-)
Most obviously, how do you explain game consoles? They're closed systems with distribution strictly controlled by the manufacturers. Want to publish an app for their platforms, either as a download or on a disc? You've always needed to be properly licensed, gone through their approval processes, and given them a cut of the sale. Are you telling me that regulators have turned a blind eye for the past several decades as these "monopolies" have run rampant?
Here, we disagree. Lack of action is not prima facie evidence of lack of violation, and even if it were, is would still not be evidence that similar actions in similar (but still meaningfully different) industries would be equally lawful.
Most lawmakers and federal regulators don't play games, and don't care about games. Most lawmakers and federal regulators do have
Re: (Score:2)
Now you have me curious. I don't remember this case (and can't seem to find it). Citation?
While I certainly thought I remembered hearing about such a case 15-20 years ago when it happened (one that went against a company that provided a means to load snippets of MP3s from CDs the user provided onto phones, circumventing the need to pay for ringtones), I looked as well and I can't find it, so I may have been talking out of my ass. Not a good look, but I always try to admit when I get things wrong, and it looks like I got this wrong. Apologies for that, and I retract that part of my post.
I'll try
Re: (Score:2)
Most obviously, how do you explain game consoles? They're closed systems with distribution strictly controlled by the manufacturers. Want to publish an app for their platforms, either as a download or on a disc? You've always needed to be properly licensed, gone through their approval processes, and given them a cut of the sale. Are you telling me that regulators have turned a blind eye for the past several decades as these "monopolies" have run rampant?
If you allow unaffiliated third parties to develop things for your products you should not be allowed to exert total single party control over the means of distribution and sale over their own products. If you want to extract money from sellers license an SDK or something... but the market itself should be protected against monopolistic captivity by a single party.
What about ringtones? Do you remember what a scam they were back in the day? You might have already bought the CD, but good luck loading it onto your Nokia clamshell phone without paying them $5 for the privilege of using a snippet of a song. When those nigh usurious prices eventually went to court, why did the courts side against consumers if these companies were each "monopolies"?
The difference is the existence of a market. If you create a closed device and don't allow anyone else but yourself or affiliated partners prod
Re: (Score:2)
Smart TVs and Telsas do charge money for some apps. Still don't allow sideloading and probably never will.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like to read my response first, or would you just like me to repeat myself?
Re: Where’s install from third party source (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can buy Nintendo games (or Sony games, or MS games) at Best Buy, Amazon, Target, or any other retailer. I can buy IOS apps at how many places other than the App Store?
Re: (Score:2)
iPhones have a developer mode, also (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are any of those selling third-party products? If you are selling someone else's products (as the App Store is), then you are by definition a market. If you aren't, then you aren't a market.
Re: (Score:2)
monopoly - the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
All O/S by definition create a 'commodity service' for the deployment of other applications unless the OS restricts any and all third party apps so that all 'apps' are part of the 'product'. This is exactly the same problem Microsoft Had, they had a sufficiently large enough control of the PC market to control a commodity. However, HAVING a monopoly is not illegal , USING the monopoly to take control of ot
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where's install from third party sources option (Score:2)
Not in the USA. If you don't like what Apple is doing you can use Android.
Everyone knows this before buying into Apple's ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to create a mobile app, and not be excluded from more than a billion devices worldwide.
How do I get my app onto those devices? Through the app store. Is there another option? No.
...
Apple have a monopoly on the iDevice market. You can try to redefine the market to some other arbitrary class, but that doesn't make it so:
* iPhones are phones. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on all phones. So it couldn't possibly abuse its dominant market position on iPhone software, could it?
* iPhones are computers. Apple
Re: (Score:2)
The fact you use 'ecosystem' should tell you immediately that apple has a monopoly ( control of a commodity) that does not necessarily translate to being illegal, unless they prevent other people from marketing to people within that ecosystem , especially if those decision are made partially on how they affect the monopoly holders profits. You can not use a monopoly to control a secondary market, that is illegal. Having a monopoly is not.
The TutuApp store boasts 300 million users (Score:2)
I don't know which of the dozens of third-party app stores I the best, but for iPhone TutuApp seems to be the most popular alternative app store.
Open the Safari browser and go to the official TutuApp website
Tap Install so that your profile can be downloaded
Tap Install Profile when your Settings app opens
Input your passcode and Safari will open
Tap Install and Install from the popup message
Wait for Settings to open and tap on Install
Tap Next>Done and wait for the app icon to load on your home screen
As a se
Re: (Score:2)
You are arguing that a lack of third-party installs on a system is what defines a system as a monopoly, but that's just another way of saying that the mere existence of a system is what obligates it to support installs from third-party sources, lest it be classified as a monopoly. That's patently absurd.
Take game consoles, for instance. Where are the third-party stores you say are necessary to avoid being a monopoly? How come I can only buy digital games through Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for their respe
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest they are monopolies, having a monopoly is not illegal, only using it in an anti-competitive fashion, so that depends a lot on what you do with your app store and how it is licensed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest they are monopolies
On what basis? The term "monopoly" literally means "single seller", as in, the sole source from which you can purchase a type of product. With 15% of the global market share for smartphones and no more than ~50% in their most saturated market, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that they command a monopolistic share in any market in which they operate. Again, monopolies are determined by markets, not integration, and while you don't need a full 100% share before you can be treated as a monopoly, you definitely
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that is true for any thing that allows third party installs but limits the installs to their shop. That means you have intentionally implemented something that stops other people selling their stuff. That defines at least some monopoly power, or anti-competitive practice, whatever you call it, you have some significant power an industry and use it to stop competition. The free market system is based on competition, these practices limit that, if someone can set up a better, cheaper PlayStat
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that is true for any thing that allows third party installs but limits the installs to their shop. That means you have intentionally implemented something that stops other people selling their stuff.
Not so. An app store is a distribution channel: a bridge into a system. Like a bridge, it must be built. It doesn't just exist on its own and it certainly isn't the obligation of a manufacturer to provide bridge-building kits to anyone else who wants one. They need to build their own.
That defines at least some monopoly power, or anti-competitive practice, whatever you call it, you have some significant power an industry and use it to stop competition.
So if you're a new entrant in the space who doesn't have the time or resources to make and test a secure, easy-to-use platform for other app stores to compete against the one that you provided, you're engaging in anticompetitiv
TFS (Score:2)
TFS seems to have a monopoly on repeating "no monopoly here" four times. Once in the title. Once in the description of the quote. Once in the discussion within the quote about what was said and once within the quote within the quote where he actually said it.
What is the purpose? (Score:2)
Just allow side-loading apps (Score:2)
Just allow for side loading apps and alternative app stores. You don't have to make it easy to do. Bury the permission settings so deep that only the most motivated users would ever find it.
That's how you prove you aren't a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't need to prove they're not a monopoly by allowing app sideloads and third party app stores because Apple isn't the only provider of smart phones. There are other phones made by other manufacturers using other platforms where you can get all of the hacking, sideloading, rooting fun that you're craving. You aren't forced to buy an Apple phone. I will never understand why, in light of the obvious freedom to choose NOT to use an Apple phone, some people will still insist that Apple must surrender c
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I should specify. See correction below.
Just allow for side loading apps and alternative app stores *without requiring the user to purchase a Mac computer*.
vertical restraints (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that only "monopolies" deserve anti-trust investigation is more than 100 years out of date. Those days ended with Teddy Roosevelt. Anti-trust law is about abuse of economic power, price fixing, prevention of open competition in the marketplace, and yes, also abuse of monopoly power. Just because you aren't abusing a monopoly doesn't mean you aren't doing any of the other things that are restricted by anti-trust law.
Some lawyer at Apple needs to look up "vertical restraints" in the anti-trust law.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the size and veracity of Apple's legal team, I'm pretty sure they know this. This whole thing is Tim Cook's attempt to frame the conversation in a way that gets the public to think of anti-trust strictly within terms of monopolies since that is one area that Apple is pretty safe. Needless to say, the tactic is working among Apple fans but it remains to be seen if regulators, as well as the public at large, go for i
Why does this even make the news? (Score:2)
He's right (Score:2)
Those will be considered "the competition" and the courts will rule in favor of Apple. Since as a consumer if I don't like Apple's prices I can go somewhere else. Just because the industry settled on 30% doesn't mean there
Re: (Score:2)
"the price the industry settled on" could be considered a cartel. The point of competition is that prices are driven lower, if there are so few competitors in a market that they can all look at each others and say "no need to compete" then the thing is broken. That's not the way its supposed to work.
No it can't (Score:2)
Just looking up your competitors pricing and setting it accordingly doesn't count. If you don't like that you'll have to change the law. And that means voting in a completely different set of politicians. Because the current crop is pretty OK with this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For there to be a monopoly you'd need to get rid of Google & Microsoft. Courts aren't going to consider the Apple App Ecosystem as it's own industry. They're going to look at it in context of the Google Play & Microsoft Stores (plus any unofficial side loading apps on Android).
The MS store analogy makes no sense. I can still buy software from any number of sources and install it on my Windows box, and Microsoft supports those installation methods. Even with Android, there are alternate stores.
Re: (Score:2)
The MS store analogy makes no sense. I can still buy software from any number of sources and install it on my Windows box
There's this device called an "XBox". You may have heard of it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are places called Amazon, Best Buy, Target, Game Stop, and many more where you can buy Xbox games. You may have heard of them.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't put an XBox disk on Amazon, or in a Best Buy, Target or Game Stop without paying Microsoft. Microsoft's licensing for XBox developers requires them to pay whether it's a physical disk or through the Microsoft Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Well no shit. The point is, since you seem to have missed it, is that those stores are competitors who can set their own prices. Nobody is challenging the right of companies to license out their IP (another fanboy strawman).
These are not the droids you are looking for... (Score:5, Funny)
While Jobs had the reality distortion field, Cook is trying to use the force.
This sound like one of the speeches of... (Score:2)
Exclusivity is not the same as monopoly (Score:2)
If a store owns brand X, and will only sell brand X of some good, and other companies that wish to market a product through that store must allow the store to apply that brand name to the product as it is sold from the store, or else simply not sell through the store, the store cannot reasonably be construed to be a monopoly because companies are free to sell their product under their own brand at other stores. It further cannot reasonably be held to be practicing anti-competitive practices on brand X be
Re: Just from marketshare alone, Apple no monopoly (Score:2)
Re:Just from marketshare alone, Apple no monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
I still find it crazy to think there is any angle where Apple can be considered a monopoly in terms of an entity that needs legal control.
It seems crazy, because the whole argument that Apple is a monopoly is a straw-man argument [wikipedia.org] that Apple is using to let people feel like they fairly considered the issue, and then determine on their own that what Apple is doing is OK.
But it's also crazy to think there are (by my count) eight [politico.com] separate [europa.eu] anti-trust [cnbc.com] investigations [dailydot.com] into [wccftech.com] Apple and somehow what Apple is doing is just fine. Especially since just last year the Supreme Court ruled there is enough evidence to bring an anti-trust case against Apple [wikipedia.org], and 7 years ago Apple was found guilty of violating anti-trust law. [wikipedia.org]
So to understand the issue, forget monopolies, because anti-trust law includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with monopolies and apply to anyone with extreme market power. Things like dividing territories with your competitors and price-fixing [wikipedia.org]. And you may like Apple, but it's also clear they are doing things like trying to block or cripple new technology from coming to market [fool.com] or force higher prices on consumers [cultofmac.com]. So, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like there's a good anti-trust case to be made... monopoly or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Boy, you really ARE a fanboy, aren't you? BEFORE Apple got involved, Amazon was selling ebooks for $9.99. AFTER Apple got involved, the price was fixed at $14.99. How, exactly, is that lowering prices?