'The Monopolist Worm in Apple' (wsj.com) 116
Horacio Gutierrez, head of global affairs and chief legal officer at Spotify, writes in an opinion piece: I am heartened by the growing global consensus, but time is on Apple's side. While Spotify has been successful despite Apple's behavior, for many app developers the threat of irreparable harm is immediate. The process for putting together regulatory changes is long and laborious. This gives Apple the ability to wait it out and continue stifling innovators, many of whom will fail before they even have a chance to compete. That is why Spotify is asking Congress to pursue urgent, narrowly tailored updates to American antitrust law to end such egregious abuses. It is also why my company has supported the proposed Digital Markets Act in Europe, a legislative proposal that seeks to address unfair and anticompetitive practices of powerful digital platforms.
Apple's ability to strangle its competitors is unprecedented. Even Microsoft in the heyday of the Windows operating system didn't demand a 30% cut of new subscription revenues from competing browsers or media players. And it didn't dictate how or when Microsoft's competitors could communicate with customers. What's more, unless legislative and enforcement action is taken, other platforms will follow Apple's example. The result? Further concentration of power in the hands of a small number of unaccountable digital sovereigns who create and enforce rules that favor their services. The good news is that Spotify is no longer alone in saying this. At long last, those in a position to do something have seen past Apple's facade and are beginning to act in the interests of innovators and consumers around the world.
Apple's ability to strangle its competitors is unprecedented. Even Microsoft in the heyday of the Windows operating system didn't demand a 30% cut of new subscription revenues from competing browsers or media players. And it didn't dictate how or when Microsoft's competitors could communicate with customers. What's more, unless legislative and enforcement action is taken, other platforms will follow Apple's example. The result? Further concentration of power in the hands of a small number of unaccountable digital sovereigns who create and enforce rules that favor their services. The good news is that Spotify is no longer alone in saying this. At long last, those in a position to do something have seen past Apple's facade and are beginning to act in the interests of innovators and consumers around the world.
I don't buy Apple products for a reason (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Way to gloss over MS ACTUAL monopolostic approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Way to gloss over MS ACTUAL monopolostic appro (Score:2, Interesting)
We all benefitted from Netscape's demise. They were muscling up to be the new Microsoft, with their proprietary server protocols and their "free" browser. Neither Microsoft nor Netscape was the good guy.
And we all benefited when Netscape folded up the tent and open sourced their code which became Mozilla.
Re: (Score:3)
But how is Apple a monopoly here with regard to apps?
Spotify, for example...it has all the android phones it can run on which is a HUGE market.
It can also run on pretty much any other platform you could name.
So, if they didn't want to pay the 30% to Apple, its not like they're shut out of the world, there's plenty of ears out there for them still.
So, I don't get the brew-ha-ha over this particular talkin
Re: (Score:2)
For the top 10% income bracket Apple almost certainly already has majority mobile market share in the G7. Android is for poorfags, which are not the most interesting customers no matter how many there are.
The 30% handicap they can deal out for services on their platform on top of their bundling advantage will start creating a lot of corpses, EU needs to get ahead of the game. Apple is shaping up to be far worse than Microsoft ever was.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Say you want to do business in the western hemisphere. But to do so, you have to pay 30% of your gross income to Panama, Panama can veto any of your business for any reason (including shutting down your entire operation without warning or excuse), and you are required to use paypanama.com for all transactions.
"But", you say, "you can do business in the whole rest of the world! Panama doesn't have a monopoly on the whole world!"
While you would be technically correct, you're missing the point. Panama doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice, but I don't know there are any rules saying any computing device must be open devices to all.
Is it illegal for them to sell a computing device and dictate how and what can be put on it through their own prescribed methods?
I guess that is the central issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said computing devices have to be open. The rules DO say you can't prevent other people from being in the same business you are in, which in the case being discussed is the sale of apps for IOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that MS charges 30% of sales to sell on their platform (Xbox), Sony and Nintendo charge about the same. As does Amazon (ebooks), and Google (Play Store), etc. In computer retail stores, the retailers keeps 40% of the retail price typically. Each of them has a "monopoly" on their storefront/platform, and they provide a bunch of services (marketing, transactions, sales, etc.) paid for by a cut of sales revenue.
Re: Way to gloss over MS ACTUAL monopolostic appro (Score:2)
I can buy and install Windows software without using the MS store.
I can buy game cartridges for Sony and Nintendo through retail outlets.
I can buy Amazon's ebooks as physical copies from bookstores. Many are also available without DRM and can be transferred to any e-reader.
I can install alternative storefronts on Android and download apps there.
So, please tell me where I can buy iOS apps without paying anything to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said they have to make that available?
You listed off a number of alternatives...so, don't use iOS products, you can use the apps you want on other platforms.
I'm just kinda playing devils advocate here, but no one said that iOS or any other computing platform has to be "open"...there's no law for that that I know of.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said they have to make that available?
Wait, let me think on this...
Oh, I know! I know this one!
Anti-trust laws, that's who. And the governments who enforce them.
You may not use your advantageous position in an industry to prevent or discourage others from competing in that industry. That's the law, and it's a law Apple have broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty hilarious that you mention Amazon and ebooks. Exactly who was it that forced them (illegally) into that model? Oh, yeah. Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Just. wow. What MS did was far more harmful to competition than the 30% cut Apple takes. Ask Netscape.
Okay, name one non-WebKit browser available on iOS. Go ahead. I'll wait. What's that? Every browser on iOS is just a thin wrapper around the WebKit framework? Not even a single custom build of WebKit that adds new WebCore or JavaScriptCore features?
Apple did what even Microsoft couldn't do — completely ban all other browsers on their platform.
Far more harmful, my @$$.
Opera Mini (Score:2)
Okay, name one non-WebKit browser available on iOS.
At one time, Opera Mini was available for iOS. It operates in a way analogous to remote desktop, rendering the entire page on the server and sending the result of rendering to the client. Without iTunes on my PC, I cannot verify whether it is still available.
Re: (Score:3)
Just. wow. What MS did was far more harmful to competition than the 30% cut Apple takes. Ask Netscape. And every OTHER software developer MS edged out. Ignore history at your peril, Spotify Guy.
100% sincerely, please elaborate on this. Here's the scorecard I came up with:
MS: Required OEMs to install IE and threatened to make Windows more expensive for those OEMs if they preinstalled Netscape.
Apple: Actively applies software lockouts to prevent other browsers from installing on their OS, even by end users. Actively applies software lockouts to prevent alternative sources for software to be installed, even by end users.
So, MS made bundling less profitable, but never prevented end users from installi
Re: (Score:2)
That's the difference between a general purpose OS (MacOS) which lets users do pretty much anything, and an appliance OS (iOS, for example) which puts guard rails in place to keep the OS stable and the user experience predictable. Want to write an app for the Playstation or Roku or Xbox? Want to be in Google Play? Talk to Sony, Roku, Microsoft, and Google, each of which have "monopolies" on their platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the difference between a general purpose OS (MacOS) which lets users do pretty much anything, and an appliance OS (iOS, for example)
...So, again, trying to keep score...it's okay when Apple doesn't allow browsers to be installed on iOS because the OS is designed to not-allow third party browsers to be installed, but it's not okay when Microsoft merely disincentivized computers being distributed with third party browsers but still let users readily install them?
Moreover, iOS is an 'appliance OS' because Apple actively prevents third party browsers from being installed despite it being demonstrably capable of running them?
Oh, and one of y
Re: (Score:2)
Good point - MS strong-armed all PC manufacturers to sign contracts forbidding them from shipping computers with any competing OS, which made it impossible for any other OS to compete in the PC market. Then they did the same sort of thing (though less aggressively) to promote IE and IIS by paying web sites to make their sites "work better with IE", giving both away for free to wipe out Netscape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough, you touched on exactly why what Apple is doing is more harmful. Microsoft never had the ability to block or completely kick a competitor off their platform. You were able to use Netscape on Windows before Microsoft edged them out, and I'm even using Netscape's child Firefox on my laptop right now.. but you'll never use a web browser based on a
Re: I don't buy Apple products for a reason (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't buy Apple products for a reason (Score:5, Informative)
When you're stuck in between an iPhone or a spyware phone by a data-harvesting company, it's safer to choose the lesser of the two evils.
Sadly in this day and age, many companies now require a person to have a smartphone, either to get discounts, or to even access ones bank account, such as in UK. Sometimes there are difficult workarounds, other times, you get greater benefits by using a smartphone app.
e.g. I saved around £100 ($140) on a holiday simply by using a their booking app rather than their website through a desktop!
It's stupid things such as these that means people are driven to smartphones.
Another example is WhatsApp, there's no reason for it not to become universal and accessible on the desktop/web (tied to any phone number if need be), yet one is forced to using a smartphone in order to contact family / friends in various locations.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy an Apple product you're part of the problem
Yessiree, buy crappy products from companies that come and go, and you can be assured that no company you patronize will get big enough to dominate its market.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy from Amazon you're part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
What is Apple a monopoly of again? 30% of the phone market or 10% of the desktop market? The app store? You can still side load third party apps.
Re: (Score:2)
What's Apple's share of the phone market in the United States? Or in the market of users who primarily use English in daily life?
Steamroller (Score:2)
If Apple can convince the and then later use that patent in [theverge.com] court for damages, [theverge.com] what makes Spotify think they have a chance in hell of convincing congressmen to modify the law?
We have laws already [britannica.com], it's just up to the DOJ or the states to bring the case.
Re:Steamroller (Score:4, Informative)
If Apple can convince the and then later use that patent in [theverge.com] court for damages, [theverge.com] what makes Spotify think they have a chance in hell of convincing congressmen to modify the law?
We have laws already [britannica.com], it's just up to the DOJ or the states to bring the case.
The "rectangle with rounded corners" you're referring to was a design patent, which is very different from a normal patent. An example of this kind of patent is the Coca-Cola bottle design. Hindsight being 20/20, there have been many different phone designs since then and Apple was absolutely right that Samsung copied the physical design rather than designing their own phone.
Re:Steamroller (Score:4)
Apple was absolutely right that Samsung copied the physical design rather than designing their own phone.
At that time I frequently had 10 different phones on my desk for testing. More than once I accidentally picked up the Samsung phone thinking it was an Apple phone.
Re: Steamroller (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, Samsung's lawyer couldn't tell a Samsung tablet from an iPad.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/... [digitaltrends.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It was a design patent granted in spite of multiple examples of prior art. That's what happens when you can afford enormous herds of lawyers.
You don't *HAVE* to use the app store (Score:1)
It just happens to be the case that using the app store is the only viable way to make a profit.
You can distribute your app via source code and let people who have a Mac build it themselves, for example. It's not Apple's fault that this might be so infeasible for most people that a person cannot viably profit with this model.
Apple has absolutely no obligation to developers that use its app store that they should be entitled to a so-called "fair" commission structure. The fact that many developers who
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple has absolutely no obligation to developers that use its app store that they should be entitled to a so-called "fair" commission structure. The fact that many developers who might otherwise claim to be philosophically opposed to Apple's control over the apps in the app store, but are still willing to suck up the hit they take by using the App store just to have viable access to that market segment suggests to me that these developers accusing Apple of greed are actually just projecting.
I'm really intrigued at the mental gymnastics you're capable of, to be able to mutate the truth (not allegation) that Apple is greedy, into "App Store developers are greedy because they want to be paid fairly for their work". They wrote the apps, not Apple, so why should Apple get *any* cut? For setting up a monopoly that allows apps to be written ? By that "argument", Ma Bell should still own the telephone network.
Now I'm a reasonable man, so I think that Apple should get a cut for the costs of hosting, th
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm also reasonable enough to be able to say with 100% certainty that those costs do not warrant a 30% cut in any universe. I'm willing to bet that the actual costs of hosting an app are under 1% of every paid app's revenue
Note that open source repos have been hosting apps for free for decades.
Re: (Score:1)
nothing is free. Someone is paying for the server, bandwidth, management. The majority of the apps on the apple app store are 'free', which usually means you pay with your eyeballs on their ADs.
Re: (Score:2)
Open source is free.
Re: You don't *HAVE* to use the app store (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well maybe we should phrase and take the mental gymnastics out for you. Apple spends tremendous amounts of money and time, very painfully building and testing UIKit, CoreAudio, and various other SDK/APIs that comprises of nearly 95% of an appâ(TM)s source code. These APIâ(TM)s are not authored for end user, they are written and tested as a product for the developer. So why should not Apple get paid when a developer reaps reward on Appleâ(TM)s contribution.
Ford spends tremendous amounts of money and time, very painfully building and testing the body, engine, transmission, and various other pieces of technology that comprise nearly 95% of the technology that makes it possible for a delivery company to drive flowers to customers. These things are not built for the flower purchaser. They are build and tested as a product for the driver.
So why shouldn't Ford get paid when a flower company reaps a reward from Ford's contribution? For that matter, why shouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
So don't make your application for iOS... or figure out ways of getting it into people's hands that doesn't involve the app store. Yes, the latter is probably impractical, but Apple doesn't owe it to anyone to m
Re: (Score:2)
Still arguing that strawman, eh? Nobody is claiming that Apple has some obligation to offer a fair commission structure. What they ARE arguing is that Apple DOES have a obligation (under anti-trust law) to not block competitors to the App Store. And no, before you say your predictable answer, the Play Store (et al) are not in any way competitors to the App Store. A developer can not reach a single IOS user through the Play Store.
Re: You don't *HAVE* to use the app store (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they have to allow competitors in the app store?
By extension, MacDonalds should be forced to have to sell items on the Burger King menu.
It's Apple's store, They can sell whatever the hell they want. If developers don't like it, they can find less feasible methods of getting their app onto iOS, or not make an iOS version of the app at all.
Just because dealing with company XYZ means that you can't make as much money as you want when dealing with company XYZ is the only viable way to reach the
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say allow competitors IN the App Store, I said allow competitors TO the App Store. Let's extend your McDonald's analogy. You buy a Ford. Ford decrees that anyone wishing to sell you a hamburger must do it through the Ford Store. Sound reasonable?
Re: (Score:2)
No, a better analogy would be that if you buy a Ford, then the only place that you can buy accessories for you Ford that are authorized to work with it is if you do so with a store owned by Ford.
If you want to buy accessories that are not authorized you are on your own.
Apps that are not authorized by Apple to work with iOS can always be installed on an iOS device by building them from source code on a Mac, or if you jailbreak the device.
Apple does not have any obligation to make it easy or convenient
Re: (Score:2)
You STILL don't get it. It is not about what YOU can do, it is about what COMPETITORS can do. Get that through your thick head. So fix your stupid analogy again. If you want to SELL accessories to Ford owners you must do it through the Ford Store. There is no alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, you are one blind fanboi. You think that when Spotify is unable to use its app to inform users of alternate payment methods that is NOT because that would be competition for Apple? You think that when Epic gets kicked out because they dared include their own payment processor that was NOT because they were competing with Apple?
If they want to compete, they should use another distribution system, which means more than likely not releasing for iOS, as it is unlikely to be practical with the hurdles that have to be jumped.
Finally, the only thing you have said so far that is correct. Unfortunately, you apparently can't grasp the significance of it. The only 'hurdles that have to be jumped' are
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't competing with Apple when they are trying to get their app on the iOS store, regardless of what payment structure they are wanting to utilize. Apple doesn't need to disallow those apps on the grou
Re: (Score:2)
You can distribute your app via source code and let people who have a Mac build it themselves, for example. It's not Apple's fault that this might be so infeasible for most people that a person cannot viably profit with this model.
Leaving aside the fact that this approach is wildly infeasible I'm pretty sure it would also technically be a violation of the Apple Developer Terms of Service that Apple forces that you agree to in order to be able to install developer builds of apps (even on devices you personally own).
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please.
Seriously... if it were a violation, then it would also be a violation for anyone to make an open source version of an iphone application. This is logistically impossible for Apple to enforce at ANY level
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Developer Program License Agreement [apple.com]
2. Internal Use License and Restrictions
2.1 Permitted Uses and Restrictions; Program services
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Apple hereby grants You during the Term, a limited, non-exclusive, personal, revocable, non-sublicensable and non-transferable license to:
(a) Install a reasonable number of copies of the Apple Software provided...
(c) Install a Provisioning Profile on each of Your Authorized Test Units, up to the number of Authorized Test Units that You have registered and acquired licenses for, to be used internally by You or Your Authorized Developers for the sole purpose of developing and testing Your Applications, except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Agreement;
Now if you're operating at a small scale you'd almost certainly get away with breaking this condition if you're just installing apps for "personal use" rather than for development and testing. But I have a strong suspicion that if anyone did start trying to widely distribute open source iOS apps Apple would crack down on the people installing those apps and use this or similar terms in the license agreement to justify it.
Enforcing this wouldn't actually be that ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a developer does not use the app store to distribute their application as source code that other developers can build and install on their own devices, Apple has no apple ID to associate with the application. They have nothing to revoke.
In order to install an app that you build yourself on an iOS device you must register the app bundle in Apple Developer portal (this bundle can be pretty well any string you want). Then you must register the UUID of the iOS device itself. Then you then have to generate a so-called "provisioning profile" (effectively a signing key) for the device and select which of your registered apps will be able to be installed with that profile. Then you use that profile to sign the app bundle in order to be able to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you imagine that Apple would ever know where you obtained the source code for an application that you built and installed on your own device?
That would certainly be a technical challenge. It would likely require programming the OS to look for a particular fingerprint of the app binary. Which you could then make difficult by shuffling the byte code around leading to an ever escalating arms race similar to what you see between virus writers and anti-virus software. As I said, Apple would have to be highly motivated to go to this kind of trouble. They're certainly not going to bother for a handful of people side loading some app no one cares ab
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you are not merely likely, but *inevitably* able to "get away with it" suggests that it is not part of the terms of service in the first place.
There is an abundance of open source code for iOS applications. The allegation that to use open source code is somehow a violation of Apple's terms of service is unfounded by mountains of evidence in opposition to it. If it were, every application bu
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you are not merely likely, but *inevitably* able to "get away with it" suggests that it is not part of the terms of service in the first place.
And yet I linked you to the section of the terms of service where they explicitly say that you're only allowed to manually install (ie bypassing the official App Store release process) apps you compile yourself "for the sole purpose of developing and testing". It's right there in the terms of service document I linked. Go read it yourself.
There is an abundance of open source code for iOS applications. The allegation that to use open source code is somehow a violation of Apple's terms of service is unfounded by mountains of evidence in opposition to it. If it were, every application built against an open source library would also be in violation, and there a a shit-ton of such apps that are in the app store right now.
You're arguing against a point I never made. Using open source code in an app you distribute through the official app store is perfectly fine. It does not violate t
Re: (Score:2)
What you linked to was a section of their TOS which you are *ALLEGING* could be construed to mean that you are somehow not permitted to install open source applications on your device. I am suggesting that this allegation is incorrect or else Apple would at least make some effort to discourage other parties from making open source applications for the device.
They do not.
You are resting your entire argument on a wholly unproven *INTERPRETATION* of the terms of service that you have provided absolute
Not remembering history (Score:5, Insightful)
And it [Microsoft] didn't dictate how or when Microsoft's competitors could communicate with customers.
Technically MS did not do that; however, I would argue that hindrance of their competitors was worse. For example, threatening OEMs not to install Netscape or enter into agreements with Netscape to preinstall their browser or lest their OEM prices would go up. Also hinting to Intel that MS would show preference to AMD processors if Intel completed their work to improve their Java compiler.
Re: (Score:3)
MS did have a majority of the market, and did use tactics like breaking the internet to insure it had a near monopoly on the desktop. On mobile devices, Apple has the same market share as Android in the US, and probab
Re:Not remembering history (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft's conduct actually isn't comparable here, since Microsoft at the time had competition: they were *attempting* to create a monopoly by discouraging the use of competitors' product.
What the hell are you smoking? MS had over 90% of the consumer desktop/laptop market. Their only competition was Apple and their single digits of market share; however, you want to claim somehow they did not have a monopoly?
But Apple already *has* a monopoly; they don't have to discourage anything, they just have to continue doing what they're doing. That is why they are far worse than Microsoft ever was, and why the axe should be swung on them sooner rather than later.
Please describe the monopoly that Apple has. Smartphones: Apple is dwarfed by Android's market share. Streaming music: Apple is at best 1/3 the size of Spotify.
Re:Not remembering history (Score:5, Insightful)
The term people are looking for is "Vertical Market." This whole discussion is nonsense without it.
The key difference between Apple today and Microsoft during it's heyday (let us designate that "Microsoft90") is that Apple established a vertical market. So while Microsoft90 pressured PC manufacturers to install Microsoft Windows, Apple *is* the manufacturer. Vertical markets are inherently anti-competitive. Apple90 was not targeted for anti-trust because their market share was too low. Today the tables have turned.
Historically, both Apple90 and Microsoft90 refused to vertically integrate because they were concerned they would be labeled anti-competitive. Microsoft avoided making PC hardware because they thought it was both unprofitable and anti-competitive. Apple90 spun-off ClarisWorks (AKA AppleWorks) as a separate company to avoid being labeled anti-competitive.
Today, these companies have no issue doing the things that used to be considered anti-competitive. We should not have ignored it 15 years ago. Microsoft makes hardware (Microsoft Surface) + OS + an app store. Apple makes hardware + OS + app store + locks out other app stores + refuses to allow 3rd-party sales via those apps + require developers to register + locks-out undesirable developer accounts. THAT is the serious drool-worthy kind of vertical integration Bill Gates would have sawed-off his own leg to have, and that he helped stop IBM from obtaining.
Vertical integration is a bigger source of concern for anti-competitive behavior than merely holding a large market share.
P.S. If Apple wants to avoid the anti-competitive label, all they have to do is spin-off a company to make a rinky-dink competing app store, then spend marketing dollars convincing their sheep not to use it. Heck, a nefarious Apple could release crappy apps into the competing app stores just to make sure nobody uses them.
(Anonymous because I moderated, sorry!)
Re: (Score:2)
Their only competition was Apple
Maybe you weren't around then, but there were a lot of competitors to Windows still around at the time of the monopoly trial, IIRC OSX had a considerably larger market share still than Apple, Sun was very much a player, there were others.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you weren't around then, but there were a lot of competitors to Windows still around at the time of the monopoly trial, IIRC OSX had a considerably larger market share still than Apple, Sun was very much a player, there were others.
Assuming you meant OS/2.
But no. Not even close.
In 1998, when the suit was brought, Microsoft operating systems had 91.2% of the Intel-compatible PC OS market.
OS/2 accounted for a command over a staggering 0.5% of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please describe the monopoly that Apple has. Smartphones: Apple is dwarfed by Android's market share. Streaming music: Apple is at best 1/3 the size of Spotify.
This right here explains why you got your first paragraph so wrong.
Antitrust doesn't work on the basis of whatever you want the market to be.
It works on the basis of a "relevant market", which is loosely defined by barriers to transitioning between different competitors in said market.
It is for this reason, that Apple was in fact not competition for MS during their antitrust trial, as their relevant market was defined as: Intel-compatible PC Operating Systems.
Back to your second paragraph though, and
Re:Not remembering history (Score:4, Informative)
Where they got into trouble was using that market power in ways that are prohibited by the Clayton and Sherman acts, and indeed the shit Microsoft pulled is just about the most vile anticompetitive behavior you can engage in.
The behavior was egregious enough that it resulted in the most severe judgement you can earn: The forced breakup of the company.
They succeeded however, on appeal, and the DOJ indicated it was willing to go to trial again with a narrowed scope of liability. MS jumped on the opportunity, and offered to voluntarily consent to ceasing the behavior that the trial was about- specifically, not trying to strong-arm PC manufacturers into including only MS software.
Spotify is no angel (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit advocacy (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy is a lawyer who's job is to represent Spotify. He's advocating for a change. You don't use reasonable arguments when you're advocating for a position.
Is he complaining about the 30% markup enjoyed by most retailers? Sales taxes? Credit card processing fees? eBays seller fees?
Apple literally created the app store and made software substantially easier to distribute. They can charge what they want. If you don't like it, use Android. That's the definition of choice.
It's not hard.
Spotify wants to make more money. That's great. But their claims really are a load of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are some really stupid 'examples'. Retailers BUY the product from the manufacturer. They can then SELL that product for whatever price they want, and it has zero impact on the manufacturer regardless of what the markup is. Same for sales tax and CC processing fees.
They can charge what they want. If you don't like it, use Android. That's the definition of choice.
Anti-trust laws, and this lawsuit, are about how COMPETITORS are treated. How the hell is 'use Android' a viable choice for a COMPETITOR who wishes to sell apps for IOS?
Re: Bullshit advocacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize that many stores actually don't 'BUY' the product? The manufacturer functions in an almost consignment arrangement with the retailer...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is he complaining about the 30% markup enjoyed by most retailers?
Retailers have to physically store the item until they sell it. They have to have people there to stock the item, help customers find the item, help customers pay for the item, clean the store so that customers want to come in to buy the item, etc. They have to have a building in which to store the item, a parking lot where customers can park so that they can buy the item, etc. All of these things are extremely expensive compared with the cost of providing digital downloads. So that's a nonsensical comp
Horacio Gutierrez (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's an expert?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same guy who enthusiastically spearheaded Microsoft's monopolistic software patent extortion scheme against open source software. And now he is worried about monopolist worms? He was the worm in Microsoft with their extortion scheme against open source. Why should anyone pay attention to what he says?
He’s a layer and a hired gun.
Then use android (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple has created a better and more consistent experience for many people.
Re: (Score:2)
a large segment of the American public seems to REALLY like their products ... Could it be that some people actually prefer that limited, walled garden ecosystem?
A large segment of the American public voted for a known con man, draft dodger, and business failure, twice, and a silver-spoon pseudo-cowboy, draft dodger and business failure before that, twice. No accounting for taste, I suppose.
What's the extra 'A' in AAPL stand for? (Score:1)
Worse than that (Score:5, Informative)
Even Microsoft in the heyday of the Windows operating system didn't demand a 30% cut of new subscription revenues from competing browsers or media players. And it didn't dictate how or when Microsoft's competitors could communicate with customers.
Yeah, it was worse than that. They extorted every PC manufacturer from installing any other OS or browser on any PC sold and therefore everyone was FORCED to use Windows. In effect, they took a 100% cut of any OS sold on a new PC. 30% looks like chicken feed compared to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Microsoft in the heyday of the Windows operating system didn't demand a 30% cut of new subscription revenues from competing browsers or media players. And it didn't dictate how or when Microsoft's competitors could communicate with customers.
Yeah, it was worse than that. They extorted every PC manufacturer from installing any other OS or browser on any PC sold and therefore everyone was FORCED to use Windows. In effect, they took a 100% cut of any OS sold on a new PC. 30% looks like chicken feed compared to that.
It was worse than even that. Not only did MS charge for a Windows license for every PC sold, regardless of what OS it shipped with, MS has “cliff pricing” where if you advertise you are selling PCs with other OS, or did not sell enough PCs with Windows, MS will charge you full retail price for Windows, effectively making your PC more expensive than everyone else, killing your business.
If Apple were similar to MS, their App Store would have charged 30% even for sales of your Android version, and
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as I understand it, Microsoft would take a cut of every PC sold--regardless of whether it had Windows installed on it or not.
It's cool how... (Score:4, Insightful)
Spotify is pointing fingers at Apple while they are busy paying music artists meaningless sums to stream their art, from which Spotify is making a killing. See how that works?
Re: (Score:2)
Spotify is pointing fingers at Apple while they are busy paying music artists meaningless sums to stream their art, from which Spotify is making a killing. See how that works?
From the streaming service that has 2x the market share of its nearest competitor. Maybe Spotify should be forced to let artist ad ads into their music and send people to their website for their music.
Epic should disclose its profit margin (Score:2)
Epic took in about $5 billion. They have 3200 employees. Even if all of them were making $200,000 a year, that still wouldn't break a billion. So they're complaining that they aren't making enough? Nice work if you can get it.
Why is there Only One FTC? (Score:2)
To state the obvious: monopolies are bad - they hurt the consumer. Curiously, oligopolies [wikipedia.org] are much, much worse, but we seem to like them just fine...
In order for us to think rationally about monopolistic practices, and much as we might want to, starting with a pantomime villain will end in failure, for a bunch of reasons. Here's just one
Schrodinger's Apple (Score:2)
Then I'll add this https://www.theverge.com/2021/... [theverge.com]
Android - 3 billion Apple 1 billion
So in some sort of Bizzaro world, the smallest player has the monopoly.
I think this is a case where you really don't want to kill the little guy, and you really don't want to enact legislation to kill the little guy by threat of force.
Because that 3 billion device market being able to do that is actually enabling the monopoly and giving the monopol
Console AppStores (Nintento/Sony) (Score:1)
It will be interesting if the walled-garden software model is outlawed(or partially outlawed) since that model has been a constant in the computer world.
Free store shelf space (Score:2)
Wait till it's discovered that you can't set up store display at your local grocer and open for business
selling whatever you feel like selling even if it's putrid and rotting, while benefitting from their comfortable store,
sizable customer traffic and reliable checkout system, and not get %100 of the take, paid in a timely manner.
Restriction of trade! Walled garden!
nothing new here. yawn (Score:2)
This is true of Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Intel, IBM, Amazon, etc. The Republicans won. Consequently, we don't have regulation. If you don't like the outcome, vote differently. If you don't plan to vote differently, quit complaining. Spotify needs to understand the rules and regulations of the countries in which it operates.
They'll have much better luck in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't have to provide a store at all.
They do if they want apps on their platform, because they deliberately locked down their platform in such a way that nobody else but Apple can install apps onto the device. Their app store is the price of that decision. If you don't like antitrust regulation of your app store, stop locking down your devices in a way that deliberately prevents their owners from using third-party app stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Its all private company can do what it wants here at Slashdot, and long as it means creating a safe space so their don't have to deal with religious or political opponents, start saying the same thing about an app store and suddenly I am the troll here.
Private companies can largely do what they want, so long as they don't hurt people, compete unfairly, or distort the market in a manner that harms consumers. What Apple has done is two out of the three things that companies can't do (and if you believe the accusations that the companies that manufacture their products are using forced labor, one could argue that they've achieved the trifecta).
You don't have to buy an Apple phone. If you do, your agreeing to their terms and conditions. IF you want access to their customers you gotta pay the toll.
What you're missing is that by charging that extra 30% on all of those in-app purchase items while preventing compa