Apple Discussed 'Punitive Measures' Against Netflix for Dropping In-App Purchases (macrumors.com) 130
As the Epic Games v. Apple trial progresses into its third day, Apple's internal documents and communications with various companies are continuing to surface, giving us some insight into the dealings that Apple has had around the App Store. From a report: Back in December 2018, Netflix stopped offering in-app subscription options for new or resubscribing members and instead began requiring them to sign up for Netflix outside of the App Store in order to avoid paying Apple's 30 percent cut. As it turns out, Apple executives were unhappy with Netflix's decision, and made attempts to persuade Netflix to keep in-app purchases available. The subject hasn't yet been broached in the live in-person trial that's going on right now, but news outlet 9to5Mac highlighted emails between Apple executives discussing Netflix's decision. When Apple learned that Netflix was A/B testing the removal of in-app purchases in certain countries, Apple started scrambling to put a stop to it. Apple's App Store Business Management Director Carson Oliver sent out an email in February 2018 outlining Netflix's testing plans and asked his fellow App Store executives whether Apple should take "punitive measures" against Netflix. "Do we want to take any punitive measures in response to the test (for examples, pulling all global featuring during the test period)? If so, how should those punitive measures be communicated to Netflix? (sic)," asked Oliver.
Isn't it amazing? (Score:3)
Isn't it amazing that this two year old story surfaces again just as the Epic v. Apple lawsuit gets rolling in Court?
Re:Isn't it amazing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's not amazing at all, it's simply an inevitable consequence of companies taking each other to court and internal documents ending up on the public record.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it amazing that this two year old story surfaces again just as the Epic v. Apple lawsuit gets rolling in Court?
No.
Apple's internal documents and communications with various companies are continuing to surface, giving us some insight into the dealings that Apple has had around the App Store
Funny thing. When you read a book that you've already read but mostly forgotten, you begin to remember some of the parts that you forgot. Kind of the same deal here.
netflix is viewable ... (Score:4, Insightful)
in all sorts of ways, via an Apple 'phone is only one of them. So why should Apple have a cut of viewings done via: a PC; a tablet; an Android 'phone; ... ?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:netflix is viewable ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if Microsoft was demanding a 30% cut of every dollar spent on website subscriptions! Fuck that shit. Fuck Apple.
Re:netflix is viewable ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if Microsoft was demanding a 30% cut of every dollar spent on website subscriptions! Fuck that shit. Fuck Apple.
Yea this by proxy shit is ridiculous. It's bad enough to operate a captive market for one time software sales... yet to extract a recurring cut of all sales made from the operation of a service that has nothing to do with where the software was downloaded is insane.
I don't think anyone should tolerate this behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple wants all things like Netflix to have a subscription option through the iOS store. It doesn't have to be exclusively available through Apple, but it has to be an option.
They get zero cut through where it's viewed and a 15%* cut (or not) based on where it is subscribed from.
* More for sub-year subscriptions.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were not for independent apps I suspect that fewer people would buy iphones.
Maybe netflix could implement it but make it long winded, slow, buggy, ... That is not playing nice, but neither is Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that "not playing nice" by Apple? First, it's the same deal that Google puts forward. And most customers sign up through their website.
But what you're suggesting will get people to uninstall Netflix and blame them (after all, the Hulu app works well, etc.) Netflix already does something more clever. The advanced options are only accessible via the web (the app links to the web) and that tries to get you to move your subscription over to the web version.
Besides, I imagine the conversion/retention
Re: (Score:3)
Apple wants all things like Netflix to have a subscription option through the iOS store. It doesn't have to be exclusively available through Apple, but it has to be an option.
Netflix should allow in-app purchase, but twice the price, and with a big advertisement about the cheaper price when done through the web site. But Apple will surely make sure this is not allowed.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Apple says that specific behavior is not allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
One more reason not to buy Apple products.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in all sorts of ways, via an Apple 'phone is only one of them. So why should Apple have a cut of viewings done via: a PC; a tablet; an Android 'phone; ... ?
Apple doesn't care how much you view. Their rule is that if you pay for viewing in the Netflix app on an iPhone or iPad, then they want their 30% cut. And if you pay for viewing on Android, on a website, or on your TV, then they don't take a cut. And Netflix did the right thing, not offering you to pay on their iOS app.
I worked at a company where one payment let you use our software on up to six devices, Mac, Windows, iOS and Android, and if you paid through the iOS app we made less money. We tried to ma
clear violation of the Sherman Act (Score:4, Insightful)
If our electeds were not owned pawns of the oligarchy, we might actually experience competive prices and more choices Unfortunetly, the majority of SCOTUS's, those appointed by Trump, are also law hating, rule oversight dismantling corporate cronies. Judge Amy Barrett sided with corporations over people 76% of the time while on the appellate court.
Re:clear violation of the Sherman Act (Score:4, Interesting)
clear violation of the Sherman Act
No.. not actually clear at all. Some internal discussion between managers within Apple that doesn't show the outcome of whether Apple actually did so much as threaten Netflix, let alone anything abusive / anticompetitive w.r.t. them.
True it might be questionable under Sherman if Apple helped or hindered a dev's access to app distribution through the store based on their usage of Apple's payment processing, but then again, It is still unclear because Apple can make the argument that there's reasonable basis for it which is not anti-competitive -- the App store is Not free to run, and yet developers get free development tools or low-cost dev tools and are allowed to provide apps like Netflix for $Free - All the free stuff subsidized by apps using In-App purchases.
Also, If Apple actually clearly violated anything, there would also likely be cases against Apple pursuing them on that point, and they would be in settlement and not trial on the issue, if it was clear... there would be no point in wasting hundreds of millions on the trial. The fact that they are in trial over this issue basically means it's not clear, at least not at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What this email does is show a clear intent to abuse their monopoly position over the market for apps for iOS devices. The only question is whether they will abuse that position in any individual case.
Re: (Score:2)
does is show a clear intent to abuse their monopoly position over the market for apps for iOS devices
All it does is show a business manager asking their superiors if/what consequences should be for their business partner, Netflix, over Netflix's choice to basically start a move to stop doing probably 99% of their business with Apple.
Maybe; it's not clearly abuse anyway... they're talking about a "Featured Apps" section of the app store. It is not clearly abuse of a monopoly position for Apple to advertis
Re: (Score:3)
All you have are memos between executives. Ones that say "Oh no! Netflix is dropping in app payments!" "What can we do" "Let's punish them!"
Perfectly normal discussions among top executives. It happens all the time. You can bet Microsoft has the same discussion when a city moves their PCs from Windows to Linux.
What matters is what Apple did about it - which appears to be... nothing. So what if some executives talked smack about it? I'm sure you talk smack about stuff too. Heck, I'm sure you probably really
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to upvote your post, until you destroyed your logic and maturity by sinking to trash unrelated items like Trump and Trump appointees.
So you'd downvote him not because what he said was false, but because you don't like it. That makes you the exact persons (through voting) who created the problems he was discussing. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Let the Market Decide (Score:2)
Seems to me that Netflix could have let the consumers vote with their dollars:
$13.99/mo if purchased from Netflix's web site
$19.98/mo if purchased in-app
Some customers are willing to pay for convenience, others prefer to work for savings. Netflix makes the same money either way.
Re: TLDR (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The judges would also accept "shakedown".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because Apple controls the Apps you can get on your phone doesn't make its' App Store a monopoly.
When there's no other way for an iOS user to get apps for their device except through a store that's owned and controlled by Apple, that's called a monopoly.
monopoly
noun
- the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
When you buy a smart TV, you can not get apps that are not provided to you by its' manufacturer. Just like when you buy a Sony Playstation (Digital. Not sure if a third party developer can make non-Sony approved disks that work without hacking), you cant load non-approved Sony games from (for example) a Sega store.
I can get games for a PlayStation through different means and from different retailers. Users are not locked to 1 store.
No. For Apple to have a monopoly, it would have to have a very large market capture of all consumers.
It has 100% market capture of iOS users.
It does not. App consumers have a choice of which store they visit.
What is this other store iOS users can easily visit to get their apps from. Jail breaking the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just because Apple controls the Apps you can get on your phone doesn't make its' App Store a monopoly.
When there's no other way for an iOS user to get apps for their device except through a store that's owned and controlled by Apple, that's called a monopoly.
monopoly noun
- the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
Except you can buy Apps from Google. Many people do. More so than do from Apple. So. No dice there. People with iPhones != All consumers in the app market.
When you buy a smart TV, you can not get apps that are not provided to you by its' manufacturer. Just like when you buy a Sony Playstation (Digital. Not sure if a third party developer can make non-Sony approved disks that work without hacking), you cant load non-approved Sony games from (for example) a Sega store.
I can get games for a PlayStation through different means and from different retailers. Users are not locked to 1 store.
Nope. You can not. From Sony: PS5 Digital Edition is an all-digital version of the PS5 console with no disc drive. Sign into your account for PlayStation Network and go to PlayStation®Store to buy and download games.* *Account for PlayStation Network required. Full terms apply – playstation.com/PSNTerms.
No. For Apple to have a monopoly, it would have to have a very large market capture of all consumers.
It has 100% market capture of iOS users.
iOS users as a subgroup is not the enti
Re: (Score:2)
Except you can buy Apps from Google. Many people do. More so than do from Apple. So. No dice there.
Users cannot buy apps for their iOS device from Google.
People with iPhones != All consumers in the app market.
When you have close to 2 billion active iOS devices in operation right now, that makes a market.
Nope. You can not. From Sony: PS5 Digital Edition is an all-digital version of the PS5 console with no disc drive. Sign into your account for PlayStation Network and go to PlayStation®Store to buy and download games.*
*Account for PlayStation Network required. Full terms apply – playstation.com/PSNTerms.
PlayStation 5 buyers have a choice between the regular PS5 console with disc drive and the Digital Edition. People who choose the PS5 with disc drive then have a choice to get their games from multiple places. That is what I meant.
iOS users have no choice but Apple's App Store.
iOS users as a subgroup is not the entire market of users, much like Ford Drivers being locked to Sync apps doesn't make a monopoly (because drivers can choose other cars).
The primary reason people buy a Ford (or any car) is to use it as a means o
Re: (Score:3)
People with iPhones != All consumers in the app market.
Even the EU disagrees with you.
EU Says Apple's App Store Breaks Competition Rules After Spotify Complaint [slashdot.org]
"Our preliminary finding is that Apple exercises considerable market power in the distribution of music streaming apps to owners of Apple devices. On that market, Apple has a monopoly," Margrethe Vestager, the head of competition policy in the EU, said in a press conference.
Re: (Score:2)
phalse phace quoted:
"Our preliminary finding is that Apple exercises considerable market power in the distribution of music streaming apps to owners of Apple devices. On that market, Apple has a monopoly," Margrethe Vestager, the head of competition policy in the EU, said in a press conference.
I vehemently disagree with Salomy's repeated contention that Apple App Store is not a monopoly. It clearly IS a monopoly over the denizens of Apple's walled prison - and the fact that those people could have chosen to buy Android devices, instead, is beside the point.
But, here's the thing: quoting Margrethe Vestager is not at all a convincing argument. She has a remarkable history of tilting at windmills, persuading the EU's Executive Committee to levy gigantic fines against what she reg
Re: (Score:3)
They won't let me change the SW on my GE microwave. I also can't sideload apps on the infotainment system of a Ford or Chevy (or any other car). Does that mean that each of those manufacturers is a monopoly?
How are those remotely comparable?
Answer the following questions:
Does your Ford infotainment system have a marketplace by which you can buy and sell applications to run on it?
Does your Apple device have a marketplace by which you can buy and sell applications to run on it?
Does Ford control what applications you can buy on their marketplace for your infotainment system?
Does Apple control what applications you can buy on th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes MSFT said "people can just buy a Mac, instead"--but the courts said that with >90% of the market clearly the market had decided that wasn't an option. If it was 50/50 then the courts would have made a different call.
You are just wrong, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
but am familiar with US
I consider that highly unlikely.
Anyone who, with a straight face, can say that Apple isn't in legal jeopardy in the same way that Microsoft was is selling something. Either a stupid viewpoint fueled by kool-aid, or the inane ramblings of an idiot.
Which are you?
Extra credit: Search for the word "Monopoly" in the Clayton and Sherman acts, and find me its definition.
Once you have come up empty handed, would you like to discuss what those acts actually protect against?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They represent alternative options that are both viable. Much like the Ford parts market is of no relevance to the GM parts market.
I thought you said you were familiar with US anti-trust law.
As such, certainly you know that it hinges upon the definition of a market, which is determine mostly in part by the barrier to switching.
Case law on this particular instance, has held that a body of applications that you have already purchased on one platform can be a barrier to switching.
And I quote,
Non-Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems 20. Since only Intel-compatible PC operating systems will work with Intel- compatible PCs, a consumer cannot opt for a non-Intel-compatible PC operating system without obtaining a non-Intel-compatible PC. Thus, for consumers who already own an Intel-compatible PC system, the cost of switching to a non-Intel compatible PC operating system includes the price of not only a new operating system, but also a new PC and new peripheral devices. It also includes the effort of learning to use the new system, the cost of acquiring a new set of compatible applications, and the work of replacing files and documents that were associated with the old applications. Very few consumers would incur these costs in response to the trivial increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC system that would result from even a substantial increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC operating system. For example, users of Intel- compatible PC operating systems would not switch in large numbers to the Mac OS in response to even a substantial, sustained increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC operating system.
The "they can switch to Android" argument will not hold water. They will try it of course, but they will fail.
If they're allowed to define a mark
Re: TLDR (Score:2)
"I can get games for a PlayStation through different means and from different retailers. Users are not locked to 1 store."
Except the disk you buy just has stub files on it, and it has to download content from...the Playstation store.
A lot of PC games are the same way, the disk being little more than a 'key' to get the actual game via download.
Re: (Score:3)
Which part of the Sherman Antitrust Act were you thinking of? This part?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All this week we have gotten stories about the actions that Apple took to protect and expand its market share, or exploiting the lack of competition: keeping iMessage off Android, blocking "Fecebook" from embedding web apps, punitive measures against Netflix for pulling in-app purchases, deciding there was no need to reduce their commission from 30% to 20%. How many more examples of monopolistic actions do you need?
Re: (Score:2)
There are two different markets at play. The smartphone market, which Apple does not have the majority marketshare.
If you mean the U.S. smartphone market, I think Apple actually *does* have a slight majority, or a least it did earlier this year. Either way, it's right around 50%.
Ford controls 100% of the Ford market (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can narrow markets down to sub-markets that much before considering whether or not they're monopolies, then even having copyright, patents or trademarks would be an antitrust violation, as would any other exclusive rights situation.
"You want to watch not just any movie, but specifically Inside Out? Sounds like the Pixar monopoly has you by the balls."
"You want a shoe with a Nike logo on it? Well, then, you're stuck with the Nike monopoly."
"You want to hire me to host your website instead of someone e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're discussing the monopoly they have on the App Store market, and whether or not it will end up being defined as a separate market, and whether or not Apple's actions will be found to be illegal if so.
Re: TLDR (Score:2)
"You want to watch not just any movie, but specifically Inside Out? Sounds like the Pixar monopoly has you by the balls."
Now let's talk about Disney buying every company they can get their hands on, so it can be stuffed into the "Disney Vault", and thus under their control, and their forever copyright.
Kid in the 2070s wants to rock out to "Conjunction Junction" like his great great great grandfather did? He better pay Disney, that is, if it wasn't already "put back into the vault".
Re: (Score:2)
I.e., in the case of App Stores, if anticompetitive behavior by Apple results in people switching to Android, then the market includes Android.
This is why US v. Microsoft was about Microsoft's monopoly on Intel-based PC Operating Systems, not "PC Operating Systems"
MS of course tried to argue that they were in the same market as Apple, but the court disagreed, citing the cost of moving to the new ecosystem, including loss of all your existing softw
Re: (Score:2)
Any action to create or maintain a monopoly is illegal.
If you have gained one through natural means, anything to maintain it is illegal.
If you find yourself with a natural monopoly in a market, then you have to be very careful about anticompetitive practices.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no sympathy for either Apple or Netflix. I do, however, have a lot of sympathy for consumers, because I happen to be one.
When big corporations engage in shenanigans like this, whether or not it's legal, consumers lose. Prices stay high or increase, choice becomes restricted. So I don't really care whether Apple is within the letter of the law, or behaving appropriately by the rules of cutthroat capitalism. I hope they lose this case, and lose their enormous cash cow. If they have to change their busi
Re: (Score:3)
OK, lets just end this debate, because the argument is stupid, and the people who argue it either willfully misconstrue facts or do not understand law.
You are missing the point in its entirety.
Just because Apple controls the Apps you can get on your phone doesn't make its' App Store a monopoly.
True, if Apple only put apps on the store they wrote or that they contracted to have developed for them there would be no issue at all with that.
When you buy a smart TV, you can not get apps that are not provided to you by its' manufacturer.
Right again.
No. For Apple to have a monopoly, it would have to have a very large market capture of all consumers. It does not. App consumers have a choice of which store they visit.
Wrong. Once you create a marketplace as Apple has done in which millions of unaffiliated third party developers are able to sell software for Apple devices you shouldn't have the right to intentionally hold that marketplace captive.
The framing of this being about customer choice and Android market share is actu
Re: (Score:1)
OK, lets just end this debate, because the argument is stupid, and the people who argue it either willfully misconstrue facts or do not understand law.
You are missing the point in its entirety.
Just because Apple controls the Apps you can get on your phone doesn't make its' App Store a monopoly.
True, if Apple only put apps on the store they wrote or that they contracted to have developed for them there would be no issue at all with that.
When you buy a smart TV, you can not get apps that are not provided to you by its' manufacturer.
Right again.
No. For Apple to have a monopoly, it would have to have a very large market capture of all consumers. It does not. App consumers have a choice of which store they visit.
Wrong. Once you create a marketplace as Apple has done in which millions of unaffiliated third party developers are able to sell software for Apple devices you shouldn't have the right to intentionally hold that marketplace captive.
The framing of this being about customer choice and Android market share is actually irrelevant. DEVELOPERS are primarily the party being harmed by Apples maintenance of a captive market far more than end users.
Shouldn't is your opinion. I might even agree with you. But legally, no. They do have that right. They can hold their marketplace captive so long as there is an alternative market for consumers to go to. There is. That is the Google Play store. This is exactly the situation with game consoles. That lock-in has existed for decades. The crux is that you have an alternative to go to before you decide to buy the appliance (an iPhone in this case).
Another important point. Monopolies in and of themselves are not necessarily illegal (though Apple does not have one). To raise suit against a monopoly, it has to be doing market damage by abusing its monopolistic position (Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890). Specifically, you cant make uncompetitive agreements, or unilateral conduct that attempts to monopolize a market.
In this case the market being monopolized is third party software sales for iPhones. Apple is completely intentionally monopolizing the market by leveraging unfair technical means to make any and all competition in this space impossible.
Software sales for iPhones is not a market because iPhones is not
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't is your opinion. I might even agree with you. But legally, no. They do have that right. They can hold their marketplace captive so long as there is an alternative market for consumers to go to.
This has NOTHING to do with consumers. The party being harmed by captive market is developers. There is no alternative market for iPhone software.
Software sales for iPhones is not a market because iPhones is not a market.
A market is where buyers and sellers exchange goods and services. The app store is clearly a market because it facilitates exchange of goods and services between unaffiliated app vendors and customers.
Smart phones is a market.
Where smart phones are bought and sold is indeed a market. There are also markets for buying and selling software.
That is like saying: Only Ford approved apps run on Sync. But Ford drivers is not a market. Drivers are a market
There are many markets. A market for the buyin
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that developers are not even wanting open ecosystem. The claim is that once ecosystem (App Store/iOS) is closed and in fact a monopoly there is added responsibility for the owner of the ecosystem to make sure that everyone can participate in fair business. Favoring one provider over another just because Apple can is not a fair practice. Charging excessive amounts of money from transactions while not allowing use of very standard payment methods such as paypal and/or credit cards is not a fair prac
Re: (Score:2)
There is
And that's your opinion.
That will ultimately be up to a court to decide, not you.
Re: (Score:2)
I need mod points so I can upvote this!
Re: TLDR (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Apple controls the Apps you can get on your phone doesn't make its' App Store a monopoly. When you buy a smart TV, you can not get apps that are not provided to you by its' manufacturer. Just like when you buy a Sony Playstation (Digital. Not sure if a third party developer can make non-Sony approved disks that work without hacking), you cant load non-approved Sony games from (for example) a Sega store.
Honestly...this question is long due for a ruling.
I can buy Playstation games from Target or Amazon, so as long as the Playstation still does physical media, there's still at least some modicum of an argument regarding distribution, but that's a path that is waning, and everyone knows it.
Comparing iOS to Android, however, there is more to it than simply market share. Android still lets you sideload apps, or program your own, without penalty. I'm still annoyed that root access is as difficult to get as it is, but at far as apps...I can install whatever I want, from wherever I want. If Microsoft wants to have an Android store, they can make one - Amazon already has. On iOS, however, there isn't that option.
Now, you make the point that people opt into the walled garden when they buy the device, and I get that...but this is the crux of the question: where is the line between 'general purpose computer' (where users can decide to run unsigned code), or 'appliance with plugins' (where only whitelisted applications are allowed)? There's nothing stopping users from sticking with App-Store-Only mode, but for those who wish to run third party content, they cannot.
I'll bring up another well-known tech company to find themselves in this quandary, and that's Microsoft. Nothing stopped users from installing Netscape on Windows, yet they still lost because they were leveraging their monopoly to merely disincentivize the practice. Users could install it, OEMs could even preinstall it...but Microsoft gave away IE and that's all it took. Purely based on web browsers, Apple actively and explicitly prohibits other browsers to be installed on iOS devices (they are all window dressing around Safari; Firefox on iOS doesn't use Gecko), but "tHeY dOnT HAvE tHe MaRkEtShaRe!111" so it's all good in the hood, right?
Now, Epic is one of the scummiest companies to bring this matter to court, and yeah, at a micro level, they're in the wrong - Apple has its terms, they make end-runs around those terms, and then they cry victim when they get kicked off the App Store. I'm not on Epic's side on this case, but at a macro level, Epic needs to win. If Epic loses, it means that the courts uphold software vendors' ability to restrict what gets installed on computers after the sale, at which point the ruling functionally becomes "everything is a Playstation".
So, this case makes me worried for that reason - it's a case Epic shouldn't win, but has ramifications that make an Apple victory far more chilling. If Apple loses, maybe they will be court ordered to have some sort of "untrusted sources" option, and Epic will be the first in line to take advantage of it, and they'll make a fortune for being a crappy company. But if Apple wins, there's every incentive in the world for Android (and even Windows) to become App Store Only platforms, because now they have a court ruling backing them up.
The law fully supports the Playstation model (Score:2, Troll)
Re:The law fully supports the Playstation model (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no legal basis (in the US) for requiring a manufacturer to enable end users to run whatever SW they want on all consumer devices. None.
That's correct. Laws don't come about at the inception of a technology, they (ideally) come about when there is a need for them. Running whatever code you want on devices you paid for is - or should be - the natural, default state of things with microprocessors. This is because your statement here has an underlying premise that is troubling - running code the user has provided isn't enabled, it's disabled. Users aren't allowed to run code they've written, ported, or purchased, they are disallowed through technological enforcement.
Henceforth, you beg your own question. There isn't a legal basis requiring that things with microprocessors be allowed to run user-provided code, but the absence of that legal requirement is what is at issue.
Microsoft didn't run afoul of antitrust regulators because there's some law somewhere that says users have the Stallman-granted right to run whatever SW they want on whatever CPUs they own. They ran into problems with antitrust because they had a de facto monopoly on operating systems (well over 90% of PCs at the time) and used that monopoly to stifle competition for applications.
This makes no sense. Microsoft used their monopoly to stifle competition (i.e. make it more difficult for Netscape to sell their browser) purely from a sales and marketing standpoint, without ever preventing a Windows user from running Netscape, and that was bad. Apple actively prohibits the installation of other browsers on the iOS platform, controls any browser writer's ability to distribute their browser on iOS devices, and takes a 30% cut of any sales of a browser which is allowed to run on the iOS platform...and that's not "stifling competition", how?
Apple has (give or take) 50% of the smartphone market.
And closer to 60% of the tablet market share. At what percentage of the market does "actively preventing alternative browsers from being installed" become wrong?
If users get fed up with them then the users can pretty easily flee to Android. It's that simple.
No, it isn't. Apple isn't providing any compensation for purchased apps. Movies purchased on iTunes cannot be played back on Android phones at all. iMessage and Facetime are proprietary. We play the game of "if you're fed up enough, it's still possible" or "that's the cost of switching" or "many apps are account-based and allow users to transfer seamlessly", but there was nothing stopping a Windows user in 1998 from buying a Mac or installing Linux; they may not have had the market share but "pretty easily" is relative...and why 2020 wasn't the year of Linux on the desktop.
Maybe someday a different law will be passed--but that's a tricky law to write if you somehow want to target Apple but exclude all the hundreds of other 'appliances' that disallow sideloading.
"Any object made for sale in the United States, which contains a microprocessor and included data storage in excess of 8MB, and which has advertised functionality which is contingent upon a network connection for advertised functionality to be leveraged, and for which additional functionality can be added or removed after purchase, shall have Manufacturer provide a means by which the object can run user-provided code in addition to Manufacturer-provided code. Manufacturer may require an 'unlock process' to be performed to enable user-provided code to run, however Manufacturer may not charge an additional fee for this process or any materials required to perform it. Manufacturer may not disable any advertised functionality as a result of this unlock process being performed. Manufacturer also shall not deem 'unlock process' to be grounds for warranty to be void in cases where grounds for claim persists after all user-provided code has been removed."
There you go. Microwaves and toasters are fine, iPads and TVs have to allow sideloading...and I'm half asleep and I was still able to figure that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
iPhones are totally fine wrt your proposed law because they allow unrestricted Web Apps right now (and always have).
That's not code being run on the microprocessor, that's code running using the iPhones's variant of Webkit, which has several more layers of abstraction before it hits the CPU interpreted code. If this needs to be made more explicit, then fine, you found a tiny loophole on the version of this I wrote at 1 in the morning.
I that point your proposed law would require car manufacturers to enable end users to load alternative self-driving code into their cars, it would enable end users to disable the SW protocols built into all manner of computer controlled devices.
Insurance law - users running modified code on their car's onboard computers are then liable for any lawsuits stemming from a car accident. Let the low-level car controls remain isolated in
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft didn't run afoul of antitrust regulators because there's some law somewhere that says users have the Stallman-granted right to run whatever SW they want on whatever CPUs they own. They ran into problems with antitrust because they had a de facto monopoly on operating systems (well over 90% of PCs at the time) and used that monopoly to stifle competition for applications. Apple has (give or take) 50% of the smartphone market.
Actually, Microsoft's monopoly was in Intel-based PC operating systems, specifically.
They tried to argue it included Macs, but the court rejected the argument.
And that, precisely, is why Apple is in legal jeopardy.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Microsoft's monopoly was in Intel-based PC operating systems, specifically.
They tried to argue it included Macs, but the court rejected the argument.
I don't think that was the case. The problem was that Microsoft's market share in overall market was still high enough to make them a monopoly. Say 90% Microsoft, 7% iOS, 2.99% Linux, 0.01% others. If Apple outsold all Android phones nine-to-one, then it would be very reasonable to argue that Apple has a monopoly in the overall smart phone market.
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple outsold all Android phones nine-to-one, then it would be very reasonable to argue that Apple has a monopoly in the overall smart phone market.
But no one is arguing that, so you are arguing with yourself. Don't people look at you funny when you argue with yourself in public?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that was the case.
Yes, it was the case.
The problem was that Microsoft's market share in overall market was still high enough to make them a monopoly.
That's separate.
The court did also find that if the market were redefined as Microsoft wanted- to include all operating systems on all personal computers, then they would still have enough of a commanding lead that their Market Power would still make them run afoul of antitrust laws, even in absence of an actual monopoly.
However, the market was Operating Systems for Intel-base PCs.
From US v. Microsoft:
II.
THE RELEVANT MARKET
18. Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Furthermore, no firm that does not currently market Intel-compatible PC operating systems could start doing so in a way that would, within a reasonably short period of time, present a significant percentage of consumers with a viable alternative to existing Intel-compatible PC operating systems. It follows that, if one firm controlled the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide, it could set the price of a license substantially above that which would be charged in a competitive market and leave the price there for a significant period of time without losing so many customers as to make the action unprofitable. Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide.
Also from US v. Microsoft:
Non-Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems 20. Since only Intel-compatible PC operating systems will work with Intel- compatible PCs, a consumer cannot opt for a non-Intel-compatible PC operating system without obtaining a non-Intel-compatible PC. Thus, for consumers who already own an Intel-compatible PC system, the cost of switching to a non-Intel compatible PC operating system includes the price of not only a new operating system, but also a new PC and new peripheral devices. It also includes the effort of learning to use the new system, the cost of acquiring a new set of compatible applications, and the work of replacing files and documents that were associated with the old applications. Very few consumers would incur these costs in response to the trivial increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC system that would result from even a substantial increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC operating system. For example, users of Intel- compatible PC operating systems would not switch in large numbers to the Mac OS in response to even a substantial, sustained increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC operating system.
This is what is known as the "Barrier to switching".
It i
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of consumer products that contain a microprocessor do not allow the user to modify the software that runs on that microprocessor. Look around at all the microprocessors you use on a daily basis. Your set-top box, your television, your refrigerator, your DVD player, your car's infotainment system, etc., etc. Apple is not the exception here--PCs are the exception, Android devices are the exception. There's no legal basis (in the US) for requiring a manufacturer to enable end users to run whatever SW they want on all consumer devices. None.
None of this is relevant.
The issue is not whether or not people are allowed to execute arbitrary software. The issue is Apples intentional maintenance of a 100% captive market for buying and selling iPhone software by explicit technical means.
Maybe someday a different law will be passed--but that's a tricky law to write if you somehow want to target Apple but exclude all the hundreds of other 'appliances' that disallow sideloading.
What you describe is not at all the issue at hand. This isn't about forcing everyone producing hardware with an embedded processor to allow third party access. It's about operating a fully captive market where one and only one entity is able to control all buying an
Re: (Score:2)
OK, lets just end this debate, because the argument is stupid, and the people who argue it either willfully misconstrue facts or do not understand law. Just because Apple controls the Apps you can get on your phone doesn't make its' App Store a monopoly. When you buy a smart TV, you can not get apps that are not provided to you by its' manufacturer.
And yet, I can hook my Roku up to that Smart TV and watch content on it purchased from other stores. The functionality of the TV and the smart functionality are, therefore, at least partially distinct.
Just like when you buy a Sony Playstation (Digital. Not sure if a third party developer can make non-Sony approved disks that work without hacking), you cant load non-approved Sony games from (for example) a Sega store.
And it's a miracle that they haven't been spanked with antitrust lawsuits over that. The mere fact that a lot of companies are doing something does not make it legal.
No. For Apple to have a monopoly, it would have to have a very large market capture of all consumers.
That would be half of all U.S. cell phones. Large market capture, check.
It does not. App consumers have a choice of which store they visit. Just because that choice is made when when purchase their phone as opposed to per-purchase does not change that fact.
There's no legal basis for that assertion. In fact, there's a pretty
Re: (Score:2)
One think that makes Apple's iOS a monopoly is the lock-in of assets.
If you buy music, movies, books, ... through your iPhone, you won't be able to transfert all that ownership to a Kindle, an Android or some other (non-Apple) device...
You also have a lock-in through the hardware : iPhone chargers don't use the standard USB connector, many hardware peripherals are locked to the iPhone through that lightning port, AirPods and other can't realisticly be used using a non-Apple hardware, ...
This also extends to
Re: (Score:2)
One think that makes Apple's iOS a monopoly is the lock-in of assets.
I wish folks would stop using the word "monopoly". It makes it easier for folks like saloomy to derail the argument by saying that more than one company makes phones. Use the words "antitrust law violation" or similar. You don't have to be a monopoly to run afoul of antitrust laws.
If you buy music, movies, books, ... through your iPhone, you won't be able to transfert all that ownership to a Kindle, an Android or some other (non-Apple) device...
You also have a lock-in through the hardware : iPhone chargers don't use the standard USB connector, many hardware peripherals are locked to the iPhone through that lightning port, AirPods and other can't realisticly be used using a non-Apple hardware, ...
Yup, though to be fair, you do have a choice about where you buy your music, movies, and books. I can buy movies from Amazon; books from Amazon, Kobo, or Barnes & Noble; music from... just about anywhere as long as it is i
Re: (Score:2)
They're about monopolization and attempted monopolization.
That is to say, they're about anti-competitive behavior.
If you would like to learn more instead of continuing to hurt our brains with your fucking brain numbing car analogies, may I direct you here. [harvardlawreview.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's only recently that phones have had standard USB ports for data and/or charging, go back a few years and pretty much every phone had its own proprietary ports for both.
Apple restrict iMessage to their devices, in the same way virtually all such services do - they force you to run a proprietary client which runs only on devices they support, thus locking you in. Netflix does this, so does whatsapp etc. They don't publish an open API allowing anyone to create a client able to use the service. I don't disa
Re: (Score:2)
The playstation market is no different to the apple market. Once you buy a playstation, you have to buy games for it from sony either directly or indirectly, at whatever price sony charges with whatever restrictions sony enforces. You could have avoided lock-in to sony by buying an xbox, in which case you'd be locked in to microsoft instead. If you choose to switch from sony to microsoft, then you won't be able to take any of your existing games with you.
It is different in several key areas.
1st. You are free to purchase "applications" (games) from third party retailers, including second hand.
While the MSRP may be set at a certain number, this is the case of all manufactured goods.
2nd. The major console stores have either largely realized that they're playing with legal jeopardy, or have simply decided that competitive nature is better for everyone if they can profit from it, and have started allowing very nearly anything onto their stores.
The more incl
Re: (Score:2)
1) those third party retailers are only resellers, in the same way you can buy itunes gift cards from various retailers you still ultimately end up with the same product obtained from the same original source.
2) I doubt they care about competition or legal jeopardy, their sole concern is profit - more sales = more profit. That said, there are still restrictions for instance sony and nintendo have restrictions on adult content, and all of the consoles vendors restrict the types of software available despite
Re: (Score:2)
1) those third party retailers are only resellers, in the same way you can buy itunes gift cards from various retailers you still ultimately end up with the same product obtained from the same original source.
That's nonsense. This argument can be expanded to say there's no such thing as retail sales.
My local QFC is just a reseller of shit farmed by some guy in Eastern Washington, so your argument goes. At which point, all you've done is tried to nullify the very point Apple just lost in a Supreme Court hearing- that they're just a retailer of stuff actually sold by the developers. The court didn't buy it.
You and I can buy and sell physical format console games. This presents an alternative market for said good
Re: (Score:2)
Your local QFC sells produce from multiple sources (ie multiple farms, multiple farmers etc).
Those multiple sources typically sell the same produce in other marketplaces.
There are many sources of produce, there are many retailers of produce.
With the app store model, you may have many sources of product, but that produce goes through a single choke point before it reaches the end customers.
And while those product sources might sell products via other routes, they cannot sell the same product via other routes
Re: (Score:2)
With the app store model, you may have many sources of product, but that produce goes through a single choke point before it reaches the end customers.
Correct. Which need not be the case for a physical store selling "video games"
You're purposefully conflating the manufacturer with the supplier, and that's simply wrong.
ID software will sell you quake for PC, you can buy it from multiple resellers or direct from ID, they can also sell you a linux version or a mac version etc too. ID cannot sell you quake for playstation without sony's permission. If you have a playstation, you can only run sony approved games from sony approved developers.
This isn't true. Sony may not be able to sell any version of Quake for playstation without their permission, but Id does not need their permission to sell it to me.
If you have a playstation, you can only run sony approved games from sony approved developers.
This wasn't ever contested.
But Sony does not control who can sell games to who.
Making assertion #1 by me:
1st. You are free to purchase "applications" (games) from third party retailers, including second hand. While the MSRP may be set at a certain number, this is the case of all manufactured goods.
a true statement, including the implication that App Stores do not work
Re: (Score:2)
Id may not be able to sell any version of Quake for playstation without their permission, but Id does not need their permission to sell it to me.
That is to say, they're the code signer for their platform, but they do not have actual control of the market for games on their platform. That market exists outside of their jurisdiction, in the hands of the retailers.
This is not an attempt at negating comparison between "PlayStation Store" or whatever it's called and the iOS App Store, it's merely poin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, have Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive behavior with their monopoly over games on their platform?
Has Sony?
Re: (Score:2)
A roku is its own separate device, and you can use Safari without any additional cost. The point was the TV. You cant load your own apps to it.
The point was that you can load content onto the TV through an external device. You can't readily run non-Apple-distributed apps on an iPhone, because it has no video input (and even if it did, it would be physically infeasible to carry it in your pocket).
The analogy with game systems though fits better. Also, if you think half is a monopoly, look up duopoly.
Monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies are largely indistinguishable from an antitrust perspective except in how carefully the regulators tend to watch them. Your definition of monopoly, of course, was crap, but make no mistake: that was your definition,
Re: (Score:2)
but this is not any kind of opoly--not by any definition that's ever been used before in US antitrust law. Wishing doesn't make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing here is that some people on the Android side don't think the Apple side should exist--just like some people who own Chevy's don't think that Fords sho
Re: (Score:2)
Correcting this--arguably Apple has a duopoly with Google--but clearly they are not conspiring with each-other to restrict customer choice, because one company allows side-loading and the other doesn't. Customers have a clear choice, and about 50% (in the US) choose each.
My only problem with that statement comes from the words "clear choice". Your conclusion requires assuming that the average consumer even knows what side-loading is, and thus knows that when they choose the Apple product, they are giving up that option, and that the average consumer has enough understanding of how that decision could affect the price they pay for apps and in-app purchases in the distant future to understand what that decision will mean for them in the long term. Considering that your aver
Re: (Score:2)
> Monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies are largely indistinguishable
but this is not any kind of opoly--not by any definition that's ever been used before in US antitrust law. Wishing doesn't make it so.
Antitrust laws kick in, among other things, when any company has enough power that they can manipulate pricing in ways that harm consumers. Are you claiming that a company that deliberately locks down the devices that they manufacture in a deliberate attempt to prevent the sale or installation of apps other than through them, deliberately limits the usability of web apps by making them hard to install and by providing a generally underpowered, less capable browser than on any other platform, and deliberate
Re: (Score:2)
OK, lets just end this debate, because the argument is stupid, and the people who argue it either willfully misconstrue facts or do not understand
Suddenly James Earle Jones' voice booms out, "THIS...is Slashdot!"
Re: (Score:2)
When you buy a smart TV, you can not get apps that are not provided to you by its' manufacturer.
Unless that smart TV uses Android TV internally, in which case you can sideload apps into it. Or, for that matter, Roku. Roku still has sideloading, too.
Re: (Score:2)
"When you buy a smart TV, you can not get apps that are not provided to you by its' manufacturer. "
But you can buy a cheap Fire or Roku stick (and others) and get apps that way. I don't use the native apps on our Samsung TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt no longer. [yahoo.com]
I don't care about Apple one way or another. I do care that they are breaking the law.
And a hint back to you - the law doesn't exempt companies from punishment just because you like them, either.
Apple is a monopoly, and abused that position: official.
Re: (Score:1)
Be a shame if something happened to your app... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Exclusivity on one platform does not a monopoly make. This is akin to saying Tesla has a monopoly because only the apps they write go into their cars. Or Ford (with Sync).
The difference is an absence of a marketplace for software that goes on Tesla cars.
If such a market did exist with millions of unaffiliated third parties developing software for Tesla cars then the same rules should apply to Tesla.
Captive markets are bad for everyone and should therefore be regulated accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. Exclusivity on one platform does not a monopoly make. This is akin to saying Sony has a monopoly because only the games they sell go into their consoles. Or Microsoft Xbox (with Xbox Online). -- FTFY
They do. Why do you think Epic is going after Apple? It's the least profitable of Epic's markets. If Epic wins, then they walk into Sony and Microsoft offices with their precedent, and say, "We don't agree to these illegal terms. We're going to sell in-game content through our own payment system."
And if they say no, they walk into court, cite precedent, and ask for summary judgment. Or they get Sony and Microsoft execs called before Congress to explain why they're still flagrantly violating antitrust l
Re: (Score:2)
Exclusivity on one platform does not a monopoly make.
Incorrect, if that platform is a market.
This is akin to saying Sony has a monopoly because only the games they sell go into their consoles.
Finally. You are correct, partially.
Sony does. As does Microsoft.
The question is, to what level have they engaged in anticompetitive behavior?
It's hard to say. They're slightly more shielded than Apple is, because generally developer software that runs on your Playstation doesn't actually compete with anything Sony also puts on your playstation.
Re: TLDR (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft was declared a monopoly in Operating Systems for Intel-based PCs. Specifically.
Their anticompetitive behavior was using this monopoly to control the emerging browser market.
Apple has a monopoly in Operating Systems for iPhones.
Their anticompetitive behavior is using that monopoly to prevent people from competing with them on their platform. In the case of Epic, control of their own payment processing.
It's of course not a direct comparis
Re: (Score:2)
Should Tesla ever operate what is considered a market by which they offer a trade in apps to go in their cars, they will in fact be the exclusive purveyor of it, and they will be open to all US (and EU) laws regarding marketplace regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, it's the corporate equivalent of racket.
Abusing the difference of strength to impose restrictions and "taxes" was what the Mafia used to do...
And those busineses who didn't want to pay would get burned down...
Very few developpers have the financial capacity to litigate against Apple and they know it. Users also don't have that financial capacity... In the end, Apple with burn their business down (revoking the applications) or "digitally kill" them (revoking AppleID) and they've no way to defend