It's not ridiculous, but it's also not compatible with the principles of free markets that are in force in Canada and the USA at this time.
Apple is not a monopoly. It has a monopoly over those who choose to be its customers and those who choose to be its developers, but that is no different than saying that Levis has a monopoly over the black jeans that Steve Jobs wears.
Things become different when someone can show that Apple has a monopoly position over an entire market, or that Apple's product or service is an essential product or service.
For example, although there is plenty of competition amongst landlords for apartments, most jurisdictions have specific laws that limit the enforceable provisions of a lease.
At this moment in time, I don't personally see Apple enjoying a monopoly position in its market, not do I see video player applications as an essential good or service.
It's not ridiculous, but it's also not compatible with the principles of free markets that are in force in Canada and the USA at this time.
I agree, regulation has traditionally been put in place to deal with the creation of monopolies.
Personally - I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area. They are the only company authorised to sell applications developed for iOS. Supporters of Apple's current policy would argue that other application platforms are available.
To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't.
--
These IP-marketplaces are new - and, as with most things that are digitally-based, a great deal of power is available to whoever is in charge. More power, provides more scope for abuse.
I think that some kind of regulation - either through new legislation or a regulatory body needs to be provided.
--
Lastly - as Apple isn't providing a free-market to those who sell through it's AppStore, isn't it a little ironic that a desire for free-market economics is provided as a reason against regulation?
I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area.
Not even close to a grey area unless you want to argue that Nike has a monopoly on athletic shoes that have the Nike 'swoosh.'
To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't.
How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?
Not even close to a grey area unless you want to argue that Nike has a monopoly on athletic shoes that have the Nike 'swoosh.'
In what way is Nike's swoosh comparable to Apple's AppStore?
I think the situation is much more complex; we're talking about a privately regulated marketplace within the free-market.
--
How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?
A single company can be in complete control of a marketplace - this isn't so possible in non-digital market without help from an organisation like the Mafia.
There is no difference (in this context) between a digital and non-digital market. Apple provides a curated store to sell apps for their IOS devices. Their market, so they get to chose the rules. If you wanted to go sell products in Costco, or Walmart, you would have to play by their rules.
If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice.
In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store.
The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom.
If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store.
"There is no difference (in this context) between a digital and non-digital market."
There is a huge difference between a digital and non-digital market. In a digital market - one company can control (or curate) everything that occurs. This kind of control has only been made possible by digital technology.
--
"If you wanted to go sell products in Costco, or Walmart, you would have to play by their rules."
Costco or Walmart purchase products which they later resell. The AppStore provides an economic space where people can sell direct to the consumer. There's a distinction.
If I produce a product that can be sold in Costco or Walmart - and I don't like their policies, I can take my product and sell it elsewhere.
If I produce a product for sale via the AppStore, and I don't like their policies I have to redevelop my product to sell it via a different marketplace.
--
"If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice."
We're talking about the emerging IP-marketplaces, which are currently only viable for a handful of commercially operated platforms. The problem isn't that commerce is allowed to take place - it's that the rules of commerce can be artificially influenced by a corporation.
--
"In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store."
This isn't a desirable scenario for many users, and isn't an economically viable market for many developers.
--
"The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom."
The problem is, there are no safeguards in place to stop these other platform vendors from artificially influencing the economic sub-markets associated with their own platforms.
A situation could quite easily develop where platform vendors unanimously agree to progress in a direction that inhibits developer (and/or user) freedoms. What happens then?
There is definitely a barrier to entry to the platform vendor market - because a huge amount of capital is needed get a business into a position where it can compete with the larger players.
--
"If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store."
I think we need a body regulating the behaviour of all emerging curated IP-marketplaces. Digital commerce is very open to abuse - measures need to be put in place now while the stakes are relatively low.
If you're going to define "monopoly" and "platform" than the word monopoly loses all meaning. If I create a business making 3rd-party wire harnesses for VW Passat and VW decides to change to a different harness and that change would kill my business, should there be some regulatory body that can force VW to stick to its old tech?
iOS or iOS-based devices are not a market. Smartphones or tablet computers or personal computers are markets.
Consider that the government concern with Microsoft in the 90s wasn't its monopoly position in "Windows," which is tautological, but PC operating systems broadly, which includes Linux and Macs.
The smartphone and tablet computer markets are among the most competitive in the country right now. By definition this means no one has a monopoly.
"The relevant market consists of a 'catalogue' of goods and/or services which are considered substitutes by the customer. Such a catalogue is considered 'worth monopolising' if should only one single supplier provided it, that supplier could profitably increase its price without its customers turning away and choosing other goods and services from other suppliers."
So the question is this: if Apple were to increase its share of revenue by 5% to 10%, would developers move to Android, BlackBerry, or WP7? Absolutely. Even at the current level, there is plenty of cross-over between Android and iOS applications. In antitrust terms, the AppStore is not a market.
Other industries (telecommunications for example) have regulatory bodies which oversee good practice.
I don't see why it's ridiculous to imagine a regulatory body overseeing good practice for privately created IP-focused marketplaces.