Looks like Apple is forcing the question: Will the EU compel Apple to give away or license their software, apis, and technology at some price other than Apple sets?
If the EU takes that position, I’d have to think the US and other governments would start to look at EU IP the same way. Something to be regulated and taken at a price that local government prefers.
> give away or license their software, apis, and technology
This is a strange concept, especially in historical context. Windows, for example, was always free to develop on unless you wanted to use MS’s tooling, in which case you could buy in a la carte or subscribe to MSDN. The owner of the device had a license to the technology and MS’s stack, and the developers licensed the developer tools if they chose to do so.
Even on iOS, the dev tools are cheap, and the device owner holds an iOS license. And the charge for distributing software is $0 — there is no charge for distributing software.
So what Apple really seems to be charging for is permission to charge money for iOS apps. And I think I’m with the EU here — Apple is gatekeeping and is charging something entirely unrelated to Apple’s costs.
I think its fair to say that Microsoft Windows is a different product entirely. Microsoft's business model literally a monopoly (100% install base) and they were willing to make different trade offs to get there. Interestingly though, the OS cost money--not free. So to run that "free" software, you had to pay MS money for the privilege.
iOS dev tools may be cheap. But that's not point. Apple has invested billions into that ecosystem. And to foster adoption, Apple's licensing model allowed for "free" software. But that was funded by the revenue collected from non-free iOS apps.
1990s-era Windows was a sort-of monopoly -- MS had a monopoly on Windows, and Windows ran on the substantial majority of PCs, and PCs were much of the market. But users could also get a Mac or one of several Unix-ish machines or an OS/2 machine or a BeOS machine, etc. So MS's actual monopoly was on platform that developers needed to target to make software to run on Windows machines.
Right now, Apple has a monopoly on the software running on iPhones and iPads and a near-but-not-complete monopoly on software running on laptops and desktops and Mac Minis. And there are plenty of users of various Android phones and even a handful of devices that are neither iOS nor Android.
So what's the difference? Apple wants to take a cut of gross sales of software targeting iOS, even in cases where Apple is uninvolved in the distribution of that software, and even when that software actually targets a platform-agnostic system and that system knows how to target iOS. Microsoft did not.
Consumer pays for the hardware, or are you suggesting the software updates should be paid again?
This is a genuine question - Google pays for android updates to be free because the android business model is spyware to support Google’s ad business. Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation, etc where the developers for those platforms are paying MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc
Apple isn’t even charging high rates: their commissions match or are lower than other stores, when those other stores are literally only providing payment services.
> Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation
This would be closer to reality if Apple didn't drive hardware margins that are quite literally orders-of-magnitude larger than any comparable games console. When the Nintendo Switch launched it was shipping below-cost after accounting for shipping, whereas there has never been a modern Apple product that didn't ship with profitable hardware.
So when you scrutinize the two no, they really aren't similar. Apple cannot use the same excuse that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo use.
Well, unless there's a regulation against it, they're allowed to both 1) charge for the device and 2) charge for additional software / upgrades you want to set on the device.
If Apple is banned from collecting revenues from the software side, then I guess they'd be stuck with either accepting the new substantially lower margin structure. Or raising the price of the phones to compensate for the missing software margin.
Lower revenue isn't "giving away". Under Apple's logic here it's a tiny leap that they should be entitled to 20% of all online purchases. They developed the web browser the customer used to navigate there after all. But it's not clear how an app is really different and some how acceptable to tithe. It's just obscene.
You could argue that the purchase of the device should cover the OS delivered with the device. But you certainly can’t demand that it must cover OS updates, at least not updates that add new features.
There was a time when major OS updates was something you got charged for.
The reason Apple develops free OS updates for fairly old devices now is that they still get App Store revenues from the users of those old devices.
Not really related to this argument, but for a while in that era Apple was under the impression that Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules demanded that they charge for software enabling new features of existing products. So various software upgrades came with more or less trivial price tags.
It didn’t last long; I guess some combination of lawyers, accountants, and regulators clarified the matter.
The paid upgrade to be able to add events to the calendar in iOS was something like 20-25€ IIRC for my ipod touch first generation. I did not get it. I thought it was a rip off. It was free for iphones though.
You do know that iPhone updates were free prior to the App Store right? And that OS X still had paid updates even after the introduction Mac App Store? And that macOS didn't start being used until 10.12 well after upgrades went free?
Commission revenue doesn't explain Apple's free updates nor is a requirement for them. Software updates were free for many Windows Mobile handsets despite there being no central MS owned and tithed Windows Mobile software store.
EDIT: And early Mac OS releases prior to System 7 were free too!
Windows updates has always been free too. Microsoft still made quite a bit money from new sales of Windows and corporate subscriptions until they switched to ad-infested model. Why Apple cannot? They have the biggest margins in hardware sales alone compared to other hardware vendors.
Standing up can work but the stakes are different in war vs fighting back on a school bus.
Human loss is an absolute tragedy. Often [always?] times those who command the war have the least to lose. They protect their children but the white/black/brown “trash” kids they are quick to deploy. This fact is shown multiple times in every conflict in living memory.
Just search “Russian drone soldier” on Twitter. This is tragedy. Imagine if it was you or your dad or your brother or your son. Then all the fricking Israeli and Palestinian kids. Horror.
I’m not a peacenik, there are reasons for war. They should not be taken lightly. It’s like chemotherapy, use it if you have to but if you have ANY other option, consider that.
The relevant market isn’t the specific Apple device users, but all users and all their competing devices. This is typically how US antitrust law works as it is based on consumer harm. And that’s broad, not the specific consumers who choose to use a particular tool or be in a particular system.
> The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel compatible PC operating systems in violation
Change "Intel compatible" to "A series compatible" and it's Apple. Change it to "ARM compatible" and it's still Apple given they have 60% market share in the USA. Only countries enforce anti-trust, there is no world government to look at market share it the world.
feel free to point out that part of the document. AFAICT the entire document is in the context of the first paragraph which sets the scope for everything under it
This case does not prove what you think it does because the market for "Intel compatible PC operating systems" does not consist of a single competitor (there are much stricter legal requirements when alleging a single-competitor market).
Just stop buying apple products... it's like people buying Lego toys and whining because they are expensive and cannot plug with Playmobile toys.
So people are so enamored with apple devices that they cannot stop using them, but don't want to pay the rent the company charges them... just go play somewhere else. Or create your own park. That's what Hawuei did, that's what Android did.
As we are discussing EU law what relevant does US antitrust law have?
Consumer are locked into ecosystems so you cannot just say "they can switch to a competing device". Can they move all apps and content from the old device to the new device at no cost? Do they need significant time to setup.
Moving to an area with more grocery stores is orders of magnitude more demanding than selecting another operating system next time you upgrade your phone or computer, though.
Asking my grandma to switch operating systems would be like asking her to start using a new language she doesn't understand as her primary.
Meanwhile, she's moved twice in my lifetime. I actually suspect most people move more often than they switch operating systems, and do so more times in their life, too.
> Asking my grandma to switch operating systems would be like asking her to start using a new language she doesn't understand as her primary.
I hate this rhetoric that old people are stupid and are intrinsically incapable of understanding modern technology.
Computers and cell phones didn't pop into existence overnight. The first home computers entered the market in the late 70's and became commonplace in the 80's. If your grandma is in her 80's now, she was in her 40's back then.
None of us had to learn these things overnight and tech was much simpler back then. All she had to do was keep up with what was happening in society. If anything, all this is more complicated for kids as they weren't eased into it like us older folks were.
Same goes for cellphones. They got common in the 90's and it took decades for them to get to the point that they are basically supercomputers you can put in your pocket.
This is nothing like asking your grandma to start using a new language she doesn't understand. This is more like your grandma stubbornly refusing to learn the meaning of new words introduced into the English language since the 80s. This is about being wilfully disconnected from society. This is not about an inability to learn but an unwillingness.
This is not an age thing, to get to the point where switching cellphone OSes is an impossible task you had to have checked out decades ago. It has nothing to do with age and everything with apathy and laziness.
My kid will simply kill me outright in using a phone as a controller. I never learned those motor skills and my brain probably is incapable of spending the time in learning them. I remember pwning my dad in N64, while I watched him turn in circles.
Further, when you get to your 40s and some "new tech" comes out (like these VR headsets), you have to take a gamble. Is this yet another fad, like the last time ... or is this going to stick around. You have far less time than some teenager to go figure out how things work, on top of that.
> orders of magnitude more demanding than selecting another operating system
Having switched from Apple to Microsoft Phone to Android and back to Apple ... I disagree. In that time, I've moved states and even countries. Moving is far less demanding than switching operating systems. Moving is pretty simple: you pack, move, then unpack; and you even get to keep all your stuff! Switching operating systems requires researching for similar apps, purchasing them again, potentially copying music/photo libraries using sketchy tools, hunting down tutorials for how to do things you don't know how to do, etc.
I don’t agree: Specifically if you live somewhere with only a single food store, there’s a decent likelihood that you’re either heavily invested in the area (farming, forestry, …) or that you can’t afford to live anywhere else.
More generally, moving means leaving friends, forcing kids to change schools, and if moving far, learning new laws and customs. Not to mention that packing and moving all that stuff takes days and/or costs thousands of moneys. Extracting files from Google Drive and iCloud is a pain, but is it _that_ bad?
> More generally, moving means leaving friends, forcing kids to change schools, and if moving far, learning new laws and customs.
Moving the goalpost are we? Sure, if you keep moving it far enough, long enough, then yeah, you'll find a set of conditions where this is no longer true (such as having a family, friends, changing schools, etc).
> Extracting files from Google Drive and iCloud is a pain, but is it _that_ bad?
I take it you haven't done it. Put your money where your mouth is and just switch. It's that easy, right?
I've used... six mobile operating systems in the last ten years. Some learnings:
1. There are cross-platform alternatives for file storage. Consider using them for important things.
2. For work things and organized volunteerism you'll use the tools of the company/organization anyway.
3. Backups help when migrating. You need backups anyway, so make use of them.
4. Only migrate things you actually care about. Screenshots from last year or that draft email to the electrician who installed your fridge? Let them burn
Agreed. I did the apple-android-apple switch multiple times. At worst, it took me a day of transferring data and making sure all works the way it is supposed to, and then a week or two getting used to the UIUX (because each switch had multiple years in-between). That's quite nothing.
My move back from west coast to east coast of the US recently was way more demanding and taxing in every single way, even if we exclude monetary factors entirely. Moving countries would've been multiple magnitudes even more complex than that. Did that once almost 15 years ago, so I have a basic idea of how difficult it can get. It wasn't even that difficult at all compared to most cases. Doubly ridiculous to hear people trying to compare moving cities to switching between iOS and Android.
Sprinting is def harder than running for 2 hours. I used to run 5-12 miles (8-19 km) in a single session, every week. I still got winded doing sprints.
But it’s not your only choice to shop in the App Store. Having an iPhone does not prevent my from buying an app from the Play Store on my Android phone, from buying a game from PSN on my PS5 or from buying a book from Amazon on my Kindle.
Woah, I can install a game from PSN on my iPhone!? I must have missed that feature... /s
We already know the players in the market will conspire to increase prices artificially if given the chance (United States v. Apple Inc., 952 F. Supp. 2d 638 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). So, no, I don't believe these are actually one market because not even the players think it is one marketplace. They argue this exact illusion to keep anti-trust from applying to them, but behave as if it isn't a single market.
All we need is for lawmakers to change what the definition of a market is, in order to deal with this loophole.
If Walmart owned all the shops in a particular city, then yes, that should happen
In fact regulators do not allow this to happen. For example, I know the UK competition regulators would not allow the same company to buy more than a quarter (IIRC) of the pubs in an area. Source: I heard the CEO of what was the biggest pub company in the UK at the time say it.
I don't accept the value of that definition, because it would also mean Nintendo isn't allowed to be a monopoly over their own games consoles, with Android being analogous to Xbox.
CEOs for many companies should have some amount of 'lower level' experience in the business of the company. I would argue the 'CEO' for institutions focused primarily on research should have a relatively good amount of experience with performing the research. A doctoral degree is a pretty good indicator that the person has done some serious research, so it does not seem unreasonable to me to want the person leading a research institution to have one.
It's a state school, but Nevada isn't exactly overflowing with them, so in the context of the higher-ed system in Nevada, they not 'simply' a state school.
unfortunately, usually professors in university should have Ph.D. let people who focus on research cutting-edge technology/knowledge to teach students in a higher education is important (at least in a perfect world).
Apple's concerned that developers will use the Apple App Store as simple lead gen for the "real" app in 3rd party store. App quality in Apple's store would fall which would be bad for Apple's store.
So publish the same app in both stores or don't publish in our store.
The entire point of alternative app stores is to allow more features than Apple’s. If large Apps have to give up on adding new features for their alt store versions to avoid losing their existing business on Apple’s store then how are Alt stores supposed to compete? The only reason this strategy works for Apple is because they have a dominant position already. This is textbook anticompetitive behavior.
What's more likely to happen, is that those big apps will simply start to split into two apps. The basic one will remain at feature parity on both stores. Then app mfg will then make a new "Super" or "2.0" app that they'll launch only on the third party store. That'll probably satisfy Apple.
Stores choose what and what not to sell all the time. It's no more anticompetitive than LHVM stores choosing not to sell canned soup or Mercedes choosing to not sell Ford.
> It's no more anticompetitive than LHVM stores choosing not to sell canned soup or Mercedes choosing to not sell Ford.
Neither of those companies are monopolies and neither of them forbid brands they stock from selling different versions of those products at different stores.
If that really is Apple's worry, they clearly have no confidence in the App Store providing the developers with reasonable value. There they are, with their store being the only one preinstalled on iPhones and with the most recognizable brand in the space, and they think that developers would not publish real apps on their store? That's pretty embarrassing!
If they really are providing so little value, maybe they could invest in making their platform less shitty or offer better terms? Like, you know, compete.
The App store being the only way to install software on iOS is like the car dealership you bought your car from being the only place to get an oil change. It’s purely to prop up a bad product by bundling it with a good product.
Because there are phones for sale with more open and/or 3rd party stores are available. And most consumers don't buy those phones. So, said another way, phones with that feature have a competitive advantage, right?
But the consumer doesn't care. Consumers instead are choosing phones based on other features.
Now, what happens on iOS once the 3rd party stores get forced in? Who knows. It'll be fun to watch. Generally, consumers probably won't give a shit. After all, if they valued this feature, they'd purchase a phone with it.
The people who do care generally aren't consumers. It remains to be seen they can can shift consumer behavior.
That said, I think new genre's of apps might be able to provoke a change. Stuff like porn, hacker apps, apps that appeal to niche communities, all that Apple would never allow...If one of those apps becomes super popular, then the 3rd party stores will become interesting.
Apple wants to sell more phones, sure -- but not at the expense of their values or brand.
So, say we get an amazing third party store. And its loaded with world class apps like "AR Butt Plug", "Is that a Jew?" and "SNES9X". Well, new customers might be drawn to Apple's ecosystem that previous weren't customers.
But those are customers and use cases that Apple probably doesn't want.
Why do you use those inflammatory examples and not, say, the following:
So, say we get an amazing third party store named F-Ios which is loaded with world class free software like Fennec (non-mozilla Firefox build), TermIos (Termux on Android) and IosPipe (Newpipe on Android). Well, new customers might be drawn to Apple's ecosystem that previous weren't customers.
Imagine the possibilities offered by adding an iOS version of the Android F-Droid repo. That would draw customers which thus far shun Apple like the plague.
> But those are customers and use cases that Apple probably doesn't want.
Unfortunately you're most likely right here in that Apple does not want to give its customers the freedom to choose to evade its toll booths by choosing free software - they want to remain in control.
> Unfortunately you're most likely right here in that Apple does not want to give its customers the freedom to choose to evade its toll booths by choosing free software - they want to remain in control.
Yup. Apple is closed and for profit.
This will eventually even out. Look at the gains of Linux desktop. Once the curve of innovation flattened, open source caught up and now delivers I think a superior product to both Apple and Microsoft.
It took 10 years. But it's happening and I think the future looks bright.
I bet we're about 5-10 years away from a viable competitor in the phone space showing up.
Maybe, maybe not. This still does not explain why you chose to use such an inflammatory example in what seems to be a defence for Apple's stance regarding third-party 'app stores' while it has been clear from the get-go that Apple wants to keep control over the distribution channels to keep up its profit margins.
you claimed apple’s customers dont want an alternative app store. I asked you how you could possibly know that if none exist. You responded by saying that actually is just APPLE that doesnt want alternative app stores. Do you take back your earlier claim that Apple’s CUSTOMERS dont care about having alternative app stores?
In a few years we can compare who got it right.