I see apple as like LVMH, but for phones. It has a minority of overall sales, but a majority of the “luxury” part of the market. This gives them influence over the whole market, but not a real monopoly.
Tim Cook made it a juggernaut that holds more than half the market in many areas, can buyout whole supplies of a specific technology (e.g. TSMC and their 3nm process?), influences the relationships with a whole country (China) and has the size to weather most battles (e.g. the fight with the EU).
People here are always telling me that modern MacBooks are nothing special and I can get a better deal on a Windows laptop. Which is it? Seems like it can’t be a monopoly _and_ face stiff competition from Windows.
(I’m not interested in the green-bubble stuff; that argument holds no weight with me - especially since iOS supports RCS now)
I don't know what "geen bubble stuff" means, but it's totally plausible that there's a monopoly on mobile devices and/or the app store, but not on PCs overall.
The anti-trust issues are related to the iOS marketspace. MacBooks has nothing to do with this. Please stop injecting your conjecture to move the goalposts of the discussion.
You have two choices for phone ecosystem, and they're both bastards about what you can put on your device. Google uses the tyranny of defaults, deeply buried settings, and scare walls to accomplish much the same thing that Apple does by strictly being draconian. It's mafia behavior over the most important device category in the world.
Both of these companies need to have their asses handed to them. Not just by the US DOJ, but by every country. What we do with our phones is bigger and more important than two companies that got there first. They'll still have their trillions dollar market caps after the DOJ tells them they must allow web installs.
Apple and Google's only role should be to provide a hermetic sandbox with permissions layer and do occasional malware scans. That's it. Once we buy the devices, they're ours, and these companies should have no say as to what innovation takes place and what customer relationships are built after the initial sales are made.
Well, except for the Play Integrity API (formerly SafetyNet). As soon as you do anything remotely interesting you can't use NFC payments, your bank or even the McDonalds app anymore.
This notably doesn't even achieve it's supposed goal of keep anything secure from anyone - bypasses are found usually days after it's "fixed". That only leaves the conclusion that Google wants to make it painful so as to discourage anyone from stepping out of line. Because that's the only thing it actually achieves, and it does so remarkably well.
Remotely interesting you mean root your phone, I presume?
I haven't found the need to root mine, there's plenty of flexibility in unrooted Android. I use the browser (actual browser, with its own engine), password manager, search engine, PWAs, email app, launcher of my choice. I use F-Droid for generic apps (like QR code reader).
I'd be willing to be money that if we knew the truth, it would be that three letter agencies have infilled/influenced the big two and made sure phones will remain controlled, leaky ecosystems of surveillance...
..."for the greater good"/"national security"
That's why DOJ (same DOJ that let Epstein walk because he "belonged to intelligence") won't do any such thing.
Respectfully, that sounds like a way to rationalize not having looked at the market in depth. They’ve had competition in that space since the beginning – both other tech companies and actual fashion companies tried to make premium music players, phones, watches, etc. even before they entered those markets so at most you could say that they’ve out-competed them.
However, even that doesn’t fit what we see. Their pricing isn’t luxury - compare Google or Samsung’s flagship phones and it’s basically equal, nothing remotely like the significant cost differential we see between normal and luxury clothes or other personal goods, and that’s before you factor in the lead they have on features like performance or security. Buying a Mercedes costs multiple times more and won’t get you to work faster but buying an iPhone will load every web page faster than an Android phone at the same price point, for example.
I don't understand this perspective. I don't buy an iPhone for "social status", or "tech fashion." I buy it for the features. Those of which Android has no analogy.
This is not meant to be an Android vs iOS debate. I am trying to point out that your perspective is incredibly dismissive of the real reasons iOS is gaining market share.
> "your perspective is incredibly dismissive of the real reasons iOS is gaining market share."
I do not know the real reasons, but I have heard 2 things repeated often:
1 -- the ability to work smoothly with other apple products, which is sort of a circular argument, but it makes it harder or costlier to switch away from apple, so could tend to increase market share.
2 - There were a ton of recent articles about teenagers being made to feel inferior for having an android phone instead of an iphone, which fits with the fashion aspect.
There are of course other reasons why people say they prefer iphone, but I find it difficult to distinguish what people think is better from what they are simply already accustomed to.
Due to my mental illness am not a very social person. But normal people mirror what everyone else is doing. We developed in tribes.
So when your peers have an iPhone you yourself need to have an iPhone or end up as the outcast.
Apple knows that they are a premium fashion brand. It was what Jobs was aiming for from day one.
Computers (Macs) - Lenovo, HP, Dell, Microsoft, etc.
Tablets (iPads) - Samsung, Microsoft, etc.
Phones (iPhones) - Samsung, Google, etc.
Smart Watches (Apple Watch) - Samsung, Garmin, etc.
Cloud Storage Services (iCloud) - Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.
Bluetooth Audio Devices (AirPods) - Samsung, Sony, Bose, etc.
Bluetooth tracking tags (AirTags) - Tile
TV Streaming Boxes (AppleTV) - Roku, Amazon, Google, etc.
VR Headsets (Apple Vision Pro) - Meta/Oculus
Am I missing any major product categories for Apple here? They aren't even close to holding majority market share in most of those categories I listed.
Relative to when Microsoft intentionally sabotages user experience, sure, but that's a low bar. I'll agree with you more whenever macOS allows me to open more than 1 calculator window at a time, cut files, stop hijacking bluetooth when the lid is closed, and other productivity killing nuisances that make me question if they ever do user studies.
By giving you an endless spinning wheel instead of just telling you what the issue is?
I've had this while trying to install apps on an iPad (you need a payment method if the free app you're downloading has extra paid stuff you could buy from it, but why would they need to tell you that) and with their TV+ service where downloading too many (how much? who knows) things at the same time, like you're about to board a long haul flight, gets them stuck in a loop without downloading.
Another one of my favourites is "A USB device is consuming too much power, try disconnecting and reconnecting it" without any way of identifying which device it is.
Of all the things they do, that is not one of them. How long does it take from pressing a folder to showing its contents on iOS? How much faster would all of it be without a fancy fade in/out animation? or shrink to dock, or anything else in the UI that takes longer than it has to because it looks cooler that way.
It's funny because in Android you can set animation speed to 0.5x or even turn them off entirely, it's an option in the developer settings. Apple would never let you do that.
On a side note, they (Google included) really should drop the "accessibility" naming.
I don't know how much it made sense when it was to allow blind UI navigation (could have been a "navigation" or "interactions" setting).
But nowadays with the amount of stuff in there, including permissions for password managers, animation reduction, audio EQ etc., it just makes less and less sense.
I find that there’s always an option in accessibility settings to reduce the overall fanciness or anything that I find jarring on iOS. Here I believe settings > accessibility > reduce motion will apply.
Nevertheless it’s nowhere near the powerful experience that was palm OS when it was selling palm pre and the like
Does your time feel respected when you're leaving the Kindle app to open a web browser, search for the book that was next in the series, buy it, and get back to your Kindle app to continue reading ?
For instance if the EU or the DOJ were to require Apple to change their policies, we could say Apple isn't forced to do so, as they still can refuse and "just" pay enormous fines until bankruptcy.
I'm not sure what we would call "force" if we take that definition.
Force of law is different than fees in a walled garden. Fines are not the same as fees. Every player that does commerce on Apple's infrastructure pays fees to do so. Fines are punishment.
While fines should be different, but in practice that line is either blurry or non existent depending on the circumstances.
For instance if Apple had to pay a global total of 2 millions of fine every year for their AppStore policy, it would be rolled in as cost of doing business and they'd keep ignoring the rulings for decades. If Amazon only had minor punishment for breaking AppSore rules they'd do it yesterday.
A binding contract is only as strong as its penalties, and in that regard we can see laws a form of contract and vice versa.
A fee is paid as an exchange of value by prior agreement. That is, you agree up front to pay the platform fees in exchange for use of the platform or specific features of it.
Fines are not an exchange of value, even if some firms attempt to treat them that way. They are also not subject to agreement. They are risk and can be arbitrary.
Yeah, how hard can it be to field a successful mobile platform with global software delivery and integrated payments. Maybe Amazon should have... Oh... right, they tried and failed with Fire phones.
I have no idea if the cut is 30%, but that's the same cut that Amazon takes from an author when they sell a Kindle eBook (and sometimes that goes as high as 70%). What on earth did Amazon do to earn that much of an author's sale...
I have little sympathy for Amazon, the largest retailer in the world, trying to play in someone else's playground. You can buy directly from your Kindle if you really have to have that browse-and-buy experience, but the iPhone app really is more convenient, isn't it?
They shouldn’t have to pay for something I buy in a store on their app. Apple doesn’t get to own the entire economy just because they make an operating system
I will think of this and laugh the next time i have to find a basic function that is hidden behind 10 submenus or just missing because apple does not respect its users intelligence/competence
Updates in the background? It's not 2005 anymore... All phones do that. Androids have done that since version 1.0. Just works? Ditto. So the answer is just... vibes?
Partially yes, Android vs iPhone is largely vibes. The point is it’s a product that works for years without the user having to fuck with it too much for most use cases. If the hardware fits your needs, it’s the best in the world. If you like a 3.5mm jack, there are other options—hence why it’s tough to argue they have a smartphone monopoly.
If you’re asking why it’s luxury, it’s a combination of the materials, machining and service experience. Luxury products aren’t necessarily better, certainly not for someone who can’t afford them. They’re simply more luxurious. Easier, more comfortable, et cetera.
This is the thing though. Non-Apple phones are made of equally nice materials, have equally nice design and equal or more utility. Several Samsung phones and the folding Pixel are more money than the top end iPhone. Hell, because of carrier subsidies the top end iPhone can be had for $0 up front.
So what makes an iPhone more luxurious than say, a Galaxy S24 Ultra, Z Fold 6, Pixel 9 Pro XL or 9 Pro Fold?
I mean yes, that’s a big part of what distinguishes luxury goods. Again, luxury doesn’t mean better.
When I say machine quality, though, I’m referring to their titanium and aluminum. I’ve machined some aluminum and know people who have done titanium. It’s really hard, and they do it well.
What does that add to the user experience? I can’t say it’s anything tangible. But I appreciate it. That’s luxury. It’s orthogonal to utility in many ways.
I think when you say "luxury goods" you mean to say Veblen Goods, which are about signaling wealth or status through the purchase of a particular brand. When the functions of a good are divorced from its price and the brand is what defines "the luxury", it ceases to signal quality and instead is a signal all its own.
> when you say "luxury goods" you mean to say Veblen Goods, which are about signaling wealth or status through the purchase of a particular brand
No, I mean luxury good. I upgraded my phone for satellite-based emergency SOS and the titanium form factor. Those are luxuries. Same for my 2020 Mac and M1.
Apple’s products aren’t priced high enough to function as Veblen goods in most developed-country social circles. They’re a mass market product.
I know you're referring to the materials. And I'm saying you can find those same materials in Android phones.
I'm used to actual luxury goods, watches and clothing for example, where the quality is very much noticeably better. A Rolex or Audemars has way more attention to detail than, say, a Tissot or Tag which has far nicer materials than a Timex. Or suits, the kinds of fabric on higher end suits are very noticeable.
Or luxury restaurants. Where the ingredients, techniques, staffing levels and attention to detail far surpass normal restaurants.
Whereas with iPhone versus Samsung S24 Ultra, both are titanium, Samsung has nicer glass, less bevel and more utility (also costs more). The only real difference is Apple has much better marketing and their stores are nicer. Better logo too. Beyond that, there's no quantifiable quality advantage.
Yes. Me too. We’re rich and accustomed to luxury on HN. News at 11.
I don’t like the S24. Part of that is familiarity with iOS, which makes Android’s interface and design language feel clunky. Part of that is the squared-off look. I don’t deny that it’s a luxury product, too.
> Rolex or Audemars
Good example. I know plenty of watch connoisseurs who don’t believe Rolex makes a luxury product. They use similar arguments to yours, down to details of the movement and price. I think they’re wrong on designation even if I, too, don’t like Rolex either. (Patek and Vacheron Constantin.)
They have like 57% of all smartphones (and 100% of the app store) in the USA last I saw. 57% of the market doesn't seem at all limited to just luxury end. Frankly, I can fathom how so many kids even seem to have iPhones given the money involved.
That analogy would only make sense if a Louis Vuitton bag was the same price as a North Face one yet outperformed all the competition when you take it on a 3 month backpacking trip
> Apple has argued the case against it is overly speculative and amounts to a “judicial redesign” of the iPhone. It’s sought to downplay its own influence, saying the government doesn’t allege a large enough smartphone market share to add up to monopoly power. It characterizes the third-party developers who claim they’ve been harmed as “well-capitalized social media companies, big banks, and global gaming developers.”
The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
The second bit, where they try to characterize developers abused by the App Store as powerful big capital is laughable. Even if they were, what are they next to Apple’s control over app distribution and their war chest of capital, which exceeds virtually all VC firms?
The concept you are looking for is market power or monopoly power. But in reality it should be anti-competitive behavior and market domination. There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo.
A good market competitiveness index (or really a set of indexes) should also influence automatic scrutiny.
> There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo.
There are many people that believe monopolies are good, or at least that's what they say. Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen are notable examples that argue monopolies are good for innovation, as they supposedly allow for the flexibility to explore crazier research. I think this argument is bullshit and demonstrably false but there are influential people that advocate for it.
I feel like that argument is the new version of Trickle Down Economics.
In a sane world where people are not greedy? Yeah it could make sense because without the constraints of limited capital you can do whatever you want and it lets you be bold.
In the world we actually live in it does not work that way.
Their arguments are more against anti-trust. Consider these cases. They will be concluded by Trump’s AG. Which means a DoJ under Gaetz or whomever will have the power to put the country’s largest companies under consent decrees that can contain almost anything. (My guess is something about free speech and DEI.)
> The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
Where should the new line be drawn though? And should we expect to move the line again when common opinion on the term adjusts and we again find that the legal definition is out if touch?
I'd feel a bit uncomfortable having laws and terms redefined to match what the average person thinks a word means. Its one thing to change a law that people actually disagree with, it feels off to me to change a law because people use words differently in everyday life compared to a court room.
I think the classic definitions are fine:
- Monopoly: 50%+ of a market
- Oligopoly: Just a few companies control most of the market.
Apple has more than 50% of mobile device market share. That means they're a monopoly.
Apple has 100% control of the app market for their device. This is also a classic form of Monopoly, kind of like a company store, but on a national scale.
Meanwhile, the legal definition has shifted because of activist judging by conservative judges, which created the "consumer harm" standard, which is nebulous, and much easier to turn into a wishy-washy judgment call than the actual, original definition. And conveniently lets corporate crony judges make judgments like "look how much consumer benefit there is from iPhones! we could care less how unfair Apple is to app developers," even though the idea that whatever features are in Apple devices that consumers get such benefits from won't still be available to consumers even if there's some anti-monopoly ruling.
Like many things in modern America, there's been extensive intentional erosion of things that shouldn't be controversial by what the founders would have referred to as "factions," IE special interests.
One of the funny things about antitrust, and especially when it comes to Apple, who (let's be real) have a high opinion of themselves and their products, is how much it induces them to say:
"What? We're not that popular, I don't know what you're talking about, there's so many options out there, and lots of people don't like or want our things and we're not as big as everyone imagines".
> We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
Why do you say that? Perhaps you're right, but I'm curious the reasoning.
I ask because Apple has earned its way out of near bankruptcy 25 years ago, by risking and investing and innovating, and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw.
>their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw.
No, they're not, inside the US. In the US, iPhone has a majority of the marketshare now. Outside the US isn't all that relevant since this is a US case in US courts and concerning the US market.
> and their customers are still outnumbered by Android users, last I saw.
Apple could sell 1 phone a year and still have a monopoly if that single user can only install apps by using Apple services. You could argue the harms are irrelevant in that situation, but they certainly aren't with millions of users in the equation.
More like the general population doesn't understand how technological dark patterns are used against them. Blissful ignorance, while the rest of us, who know whats going on, suffer.
That pales in comparison to the payouts Apple does to its software suppliers. Just making payments to a company doesn't make you a "customer" in any real sense.
And yes, why on Earth should laws not have the outcomes that the citizens electing the government that passes them expect?
If people don't want a thing they call monopoly or any other word (and wanting that does not violate or contradict other norms or constitutional principles they want even more) isn't that what they should get in a democracy?
> The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.
In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable?
Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)! Punishing Google (or Apple) because they make good products that people like is beyond stupid.
The biggest irony in all of this is that AI is shaking things up in a major way. New entrants like OpenAI and Anthropic may very well end up beating Apple and Google in various markets over the next few years. The government is picking a time of intense competition and uncertainty to go after these companies.
> Punishing Google (or Apple) because they make good products that people like is beyond stupid.
These companies are squeezing blood out of every company in existence, and there is no way out.
This racket hurts consumers, because there's no competition. Competition is impossible.
Apple and Google are an invasive species that have destroyed the ecosystem diversity, and now it's time for the government to step in and restore balance.
> big, successful companies
Disney is a big, successful company. Apple and Google are Blunderbores [1]. They control nearly all of computing. I can't think of a way you aren't paying them. They have their grubby hands on every part of the funnel, taxing it piece by piece.
They force you to pay for search, they force you to pay to deploy software, they tax your business transactions, they steal information about your business transactions, they keep you from forming a customer relationship yourself. They control what technology you use, they force you to make unscheduled updates, they prevent you from updating on your own or making your own choices.
They're Blunderbores, and the world is their kingdom until we cut them down a notch.
Ummm, what? What about Microsoft that has a stranglehold on corporate computing? IBM, SAP, TSMC, ASML all dominate certain aspects of computing. Nvidia? Meta has a near monopoly on social networks (Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram).
I personally do think Apple behaves very anti-competitively but none of these are actual monopolies IMO (ASML might be the closest but only because no one else has figured out how to do what they do).
Apple is creating a large marketplace where it controls everything. It can be argued that the 30% tax is probably reducing the amount of useful software being produced, as is the case with other store rules like browser engine restrictions. Also, it allows Apple to compete in unfair ways against e.g. Spotify has to pay the 30% tax if they want to offer the same service as Apple, which is to offer in app subscription options, where Apple pays nothing. It may or may not meet the legal definition of a trust, but it surely seems to have all of its negative effects.
I don't quite agree with your conclusion. When these companies get as huge as they are, it's quite easy for them to abuse their size in ways that harm consumers and smaller businesses. This is different than just critiquing them for being large companies.
In the case of Google, I (and the DOJ) believe they clearly are/were suppressing other search engines. Additionally, with Chrome, its not just as simple as using a different browser. Keep in mind Google has control of Chromium and can do things like pushing manifest v3 that benefit them. Their control over Chromium also allows them to essentially dictate what will become web standards. If you think web standards should be change to allow users more privacy, there's nothing you can do because Google leverages their power to prevent that.
In the case of Apple, I don't think there's many people hating because they make nice products. You don't have to agree, but people are arguing that things like their app store policies are unfair, NOT that apple doesn't deserve to be large and make a profit. Apple is is a position of power, that is OK. What is not OK is them taking advantage of that in an anti-consumer manner.
I think the issue is not that there are huge companies, and it also is not that these huge companies are for-profit institutions. It's that these companies are using their size to make a profit, and sometimes this is in ways that make the world a worse place.
These institutions are beholden to their shareholders to try and make a profit. They are only trying to fulfill this duty. It is difficult for a company to grow to massive scale and not sometimes seek profit in ways that negatively impact consumers and smaller businesses. If we want these large businesses to fulfill their fiduciary duty in a way that does not negatively impact us, it is the duty of government to provide regulation/guidance/action.
>In other words the "new antitrust" is just people who dislike big, successful companies trying to bring them down a peg. Apple is "large and powerful" because it sells products people love. Why is that unjustifiable?
Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother. "Let no good deed go unpunished." is supposed to be a joke, y'all.
>Apparently the DoJ is pressuring Google to sell Chrome. But if you don't like Chrome due to all the tracking, you can just use a Chromium-derived browser (or just Chromium)!
Google engages in forcing other browsers out of the market, which is a monopolistic act that is prohibited by law. Microsoft with Internet Explorer got busted for a lot of what Google does with Chrome today.
> Because punishing success for success's sake incentivizes people and businesses to just not bother.
This is often said as justification for striking down higher taxes or whatever, but does it actually happen in reality? Was the pace of American innovation any lower in the 1950s with the high tax rates then? Was there any less dynamism in the black market during Soviet rule? Seems like when you set restrictions, people will still compete and find ways to get ahead- it just might not be in a desirable place.
Why do their lawyers keep rehashing the same tired argument as non-lawyer HN users? You don't literally need to have 100% absolute market share. You're a monopoly if you can push people around as if you are a monopoly.
Because they win with the same tired argument? Maybe the better question is why do plaintiffs keep rehashing the same tired argument that Apple’s control of iOS and the App Store is illegal?
The concluding paragraph from the article is this, suggesting there is no guarantee that Trump will drop the suit:
"The wildcard, of course, is that a new administration will soon take over, with President-elect Donald Trump’s DOJ continuing the case argued by the agency under President Joe Biden. But Trump and likely members of his administration have dubbed “Big Tech” a persistent enemy, and Trump’s DOJ brought suits against other tech companies in his first term — so Apple likely can’t count on a reprieve."
I've always loved the flavor of Apple's dissonant marketing. Invest in progressive advertisement that puts educated liberal customers in the back of your pocket, while wining-and-dining Donald Trump behind closed doors. It wouldn't be insidious if it didn't work flawlessly.
The cognitive dissonance is that "Mother Nature" would not fraternize with a company that treats oil barons like welcome bedfellows. The progressive marketing image that Apple promotes is insanely dilapidated when cross-examining the values they promote in real life.
> Assuming they have something like morality seems absurd.
That's the ultimate grab-bag defense of morally indefensible businesses. You could say that about Meta or Google but I'll be damned if they don't have dissonant marketing too.
It's not worth taking this personally when I'm just highlighting a proven fact. Apple could sell liberal customers a concealed firearm, and they'd all rush out to buy it because MKBHD and Snazzy Labs said it fired nicely compared to the Glock 18.
That seems more like a cognitive dissonance some people might have about Apple then, not one of Apple.
I personally use their products but have absolutely no illusions about them somehow being "the good guys". They're a for-profit corporation with interests and aesthetic preferences that sometimes do, and sometimes don't, overlap with mine. Assuming they have something like morality seems absurd.
