[sinnoh]

"their" platform. nominally you can install whatever you want using profiles, but effectively having to do so is an artificially high barrier to entry for competing app stores (not to mention you have to pay apple $100/year for the 'privilege' of installing whatever you want on your own device for a year. no way to do so permanently.)

the degree to which apple has singlemindedly anticompetitively abused their vertical integration frankly astonishes me. the breaking point for me was opening the music app on the at the time 'latest' ios to be presented with a full page ad for apple music.

utter garbage and I hope they get what's coming to them before they have a chance to worm out of it.

[bilbo0s]

The law will not see a company as having a monopoly just because they have a monopoly on their product. (Especially when that product has a minority market position.)

Now there is a completely separate question of unfair competition, but this has to be answered on an App by App basis. Does Apple have an app that provides the service in question? Does Apple disallow competing apps which provide that same service? Is there a compelling reason for the prohibition (Security, physical safety, etc.)?

There's an awful lot that goes into those questions. That said, it seems to me that if Apple is prohibiting spotify from being on its devices, this could be unfair competition. I don't really see any issue of safety with spotify. (I don't use it though, so if there is some safety or security issue with it, I'll freely admit I'm wrong.)

Then, of course, the issue of the tax. That's a non-starter. Apple, actually any company, is allowed to charge for services rendered. They can't be compelled to provide app store and ecommerce services at no cost.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The law will not see a company as having a monopoly just because they have a monopoly on their product.

Having a monopoly on Clorox bleach doesn't mean you have a monopoly on bleach. You have to define what the market is.

The issue is that iOS app distribution and Android app distribution are two separate markets, in a way that Clorox bleach and Great Value bleach are not. The apps being distributed are not the same (they have to be written specifically for each platform), the customers for each are almost entirely disjoint, etc. You can't substitute one for the other. You can't distribute your iOS app to iOS devices via Amazon or Google Play.

It's like operating a school. You don't have a monopoly on schools, but you control what kind of books and equipment your students have to buy. If you specify commodities (e.g. any laptop with a minimum spec and a web browser), you don't have a monopoly there either. But if you require the students to buy a specific thing that only you provide, now you have a monopoly. You've created a market with no viable substitutes and no other competitors -- that's what a monopoly is. And that's what the App Store is.

> They can't be compelled to provide app store and ecommerce services at no cost.

Nor is that what's needed. What's needed is competing app stores for iOS apps.

[threeseed]

That doesn’t make sense.

Who cares if the Spotify apps for Android/iOS are coded differently ? It’s irrelevant. Users have access to the same app on both platforms with the same functionality. And Apple is not stopping these users from moving to Android.

And yes Apple has a monopoly on their products. So does every company.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Who cares if the Spotify apps for Android/iOS are coded differently ?

It's a different product. It's like saying who cares if you can't sell shoes, go sell boots. Different products, different markets.

> Users have access to the same app on both platforms with the same functionality.

Not if Apple doesn't accept it in their app store.

> And Apple is not stopping these users from moving to Android.

Charter isn't stopping a homeowner from buying a house in Comcast's service area either. Having to replace a $1000 phone in order to get a $1 app is a prohibitively high barrier.

Moreover, in the market for app distribution the customer is the developer. Saying "you can sell to Android customers" is like a company with a regional monopoly in California saying "you can sell to customers in Texas" as an argument that they don't have a monopoly in California.

> And yes Apple has a monopoly on their products. So does every company.

Clorox has a monopoly on Clorox bleach, not on bleach, and other bleach is a perfect substitute. Apple has a monopoly on their App Store, which is the sole app store for iOS and there are no viable substitutes.

[PunksATawnyFill]

I don't even see why Apple needs a reason. As has been noted, they don't have a monopoly, and it IS their app store. I don't see why they can't just openly reject competing apps. If I'm running a doughnut shop where I sell my own doughnuts, I can let another vendor come in and sell coffee but turn away a competing doughnut maker.

Now... that doesn't mean that Apple aren't jagoffs in this matter. I'm sure they have bullet-proof fine-print, but the best attack one can make on them is that they're stealing from vendors by letting them waste development resources and then changing the rules when the development's done.

[frosted-flakes]

But Apple also sells phones, and selling music is just a side job. A better analogy is if you own the fairgrounds and an unlimited amount of booths that you to rent to food vendors, and you also sell doughnuts alongside the other vendors. But you don't let a competing doughnut vendor rent one of your booths. Is that anti-competitive? I don't know.

[threeseed]

Selling music isn’t a side job for Apple though.

It’s one of the most fundamental parts of their ecosystem.

And your analogy is really bad. If you own a fairground and a doughtnut shop then it is not illegal to exclude competitors. It’s normal business practice.

[frosted-flakes]

Compared to Apple's main business of selling hardware, selling music is a side job.

And the fairgrounds analogy is better than the doughnut shop one. I didn't say it was perfect, but it illustrates the point. I also did not say that it was illegal or that it wasn't normal business practice--that's why I said "I don't know".