[scarface_74]

> It's not that you want to buy a Whopper at McDonalds. It's that you have a Ford and if you try to drive it to Burger King to buy a Whopper they disable your car because Ford owns McDonalds and Chevy owns Burger King.

We are talking about ARM chips, anyone with the money can design their own ARM chips and contract TSMC to manufacturer them. There are at least a dozen companies that do so. No one forces you to buy phones made by Apple just like no one forces you to buy burgers from McDonalds.

If people are willing gk pay more for a gourmet burger at an upscale restaurant (Apple) than McDonalds (Android$ because they feel like the burgers are better, that’s people making an informed choice.

> The same antitrust action should be applied to video game consoles.

Are you saying that video game makers should also be forced to license their IP so other manufacturers can clone their consoles?

[AnthonyMouse]

> We are talking about ARM chips, anyone with the money can design their own ARM chips and contract TSMC to manufacturer them.

So the first step is to have enough capital to design a state of the art microprocessor that can compete with the world's largest corporation. If this is feasible, why hasn't anyone done it? Every other phone chip is slower.

Then they have to make their own phone, and their own app store, and somehow get a critical mass of third party developers to make apps for a platform that has no existing user base or a get a critical mass of users to buy a phone without existing third party apps, and then drive Apple out of the market because even if they achieved 50% market share in phones they still could not distribute their app to half of their app's customer base.

If you want to write a piece of software that Apple doesn't approve, the barrier to entry has gone from "you post it on your website and people install it on their Apple computers" to "you must be a trillion dollar multinational conglomerate who can not only produce your own vertically integrated hardware and software platform but operate at a loss long enough to cause all of your app customers who currently have an iPhone to switch to it so they can install your app."

And that would only work for one entity -- then they're the vertically integrated conglomerate standing between third party developers and users.

This is clearly not a realistic option.

> If people are willing gk pay more for a gourmet burger at an upscale restaurant (Apple) than McDonalds (Android$ because they feel like the burgers are better, that’s people making an informed choice.

The whole point of tying is to take away your choice. Instead of choosing which phone you want and which OS you want and which app store you want, all of these are forced into a single decision that can no longer accurately represent the customer's true preferences. Having the information doesn't let you choose differently because the decision is still coerced to binary.

But if you want to talk about informed, why is the 30% cut hidden from the end user? Shouldn't it be on the statement when they buy something from the store?

It isn't because it would make Apple look bad to be taking such a large percentage from third parties you thought you were supporting, after you've already paid them hundreds of dollars for a piece of hardware you ought to own.

> Are you saying that video game makers should also be forced to license their IP so other manufacturers can clone their consoles?

Nobody wants to clone a console. They're sold at a loss in a dumping scheme to achieve a network effect so they can shake down video game producers.

What they should not is be able to shake down video game producers. Xbox and PlayStation should have Steam and the Epic Games Store. Which would render the dumping scheme non-viable, as intended.

[scarface_74]

> So the first step is to have enough capital to design a state of the art microprocessor that can compete with the world's largest corporation.

> and I can’t create my own car either to compete with a Tesla that doesn’t mean Tesla is being anti competitive.

> If this is feasible, why hasn't anyone done it? Every other phone chip is slower.

Ask Microsoft, Google, Qualcomm etc. Microsoft in particular had a years limb head start on Apple in the phone market. And Apple was still basically coming out of near death at the time. The other companies incompetence doesn’t mean Apple is being anti competitive.

> The whole point of tying is to take away your choice. Instead of choosing which phone you want and which OS you want and which app store you want, all of these are forced into a single decision that can no longer accurately represent the customer's true preferences.

I can’t choose to get a Tesla battery and the Tesla infotainment system on a Ford Mustang. Is Ford being anticompetitive?

The entire point of leverage is that Apple has an integrated experience and people pay a premium for that. If you want a non integrated experience - you can buy an x86 computer or an Android phone - as most of the workd does.

> But if you want to talk about informed, why is the 30% cut hidden from the end user? Shouldn't it be on the statement when they buy something from the store?

Does any retailer show the customer the difference between wholesale price and retail price?

> Nobody wants to clone a console. They're sold at a loss in a dumping scheme to achieve a network effect so they can shake down video game producers.

There were at one point reference designs for consoles and the hardware was manufactured by others

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3DO_Interactive_Multiplayer

> What they should not is be able to shake down video game producers. Xbox and PlayStation should have Steam and the Epic Games Store. Which would render the dumping scheme non-viable, as intended.

Instead of whining, Steam actually did come out with their console. That’s the same thing any large enough company can do and their are literally hundreds of companies selling their own phone

[AnthonyMouse]

> and I can’t create my own car either to compete with a Tesla that doesn’t mean Tesla is being anti competitive.

Can't you though?

https://performance28.com/modified-tesla/

> Ask Microsoft, Google, Qualcomm etc.

They all have less money -- and that's saying something.

> The other companies incompetence doesn’t mean Apple is being anti competitive.

The problem is not that they made a faster CPU -- that's great. The problem is that they won't sell you the faster CPU unless you buy their phone and their OS and bind yourself to be locked into their app store.

> I can’t choose to get a Tesla battery and the Tesla infotainment system on a Ford Mustang. Is Ford being anticompetitive?

Ford will sell you every separate part of the Mustang. You can buy the frame and put Tesla batteries in it if that's what you want to do.

> The entire point of leverage is that Apple has an integrated experience and people pay a premium for that. If you want a non integrated experience - you can buy an x86 computer or an Android phone - as most of the workd does.

There is nothing wrong with selling an iPhone to customers who want an iPhone. The issue is the tying. Anyone who wants it should be able to get the hardware and the OS without the app store.

I honestly don't understand why you defend them. You would still be able to get the thing that you want, but then other people would too. The availability of more options would make the market more competitive and force even Apple to provide more value for less money -- which you would benefit from even if you continue to use exclusively their products.

Would you not benefit if the 30% they take was less than 10%, and then you paid 10% less and the app developer got 10% more which they could use to make more and better apps?

> Does any retailer show the customer the difference between wholesale price and retail price?

Normal retailers show the customer the price, which they can then compare with other retailers. If they were charging 30% when five other competitors were charging 5%, their prices would be higher. When there are no competing retailers because Apple prohibits them, the only information for the customer to use to evaluate the cost of using Apple's store is the amount they charge to the developer.

> There were at one point reference designs for consoles and the hardware was manufactured by others

Which is fine. But then they still don't need to shake down the game developers because they can charge a license fee to manufacture the hardware in the same way that ARM does.

> Instead of whining, Steam actually did come out with their console. That’s the same thing any large enough company can do and their are literally hundreds of companies selling their own phone

I'm more concerned with what small companies can do.

But even Valve is deploying a mitigation rather than a solution -- if they captured half the market with their console (which they have yet to do), they'd still be paying the monopoly rent on the other half of their sales.

[duskwuff]

> The problem is not that they made a faster CPU -- that's great. The problem is that they won't sell you the faster CPU unless you buy their phone and their OS and bind yourself to be locked into their app store.

You think this is something which only Apple does?

Go try to buy a Snapdragon CPU from Qualcomm. Or an Exynos from Samsung. Or (going a little further afield) a Graviton CPU from Amazon.

There are a lot of components which are only sold to select manufacturing partners, or which are entirely exclusive to a manufacturer. Apple is not doing anything outlandish here.

[AnthonyMouse]

The people who would be buying the chips from Apple are the same one who are buying them from Samsung or Qualcomm.

Those companies will basically sell them to anyone willing to place a volume order, and if there was any demand for it they'd be selling them retail on Newegg. (There isn't because they don't use sockets and there aren't enough individual customers with the equipment to solder it to a logic board, but an individual can get one of their CPUs on a single board computer.)

Amazon doesn't sell Gravitron separately but they also don't sell it whatsoever. I don't know what to call that but it's not what's happening with Apple.

[duskwuff]

> Those companies will basically sell them to anyone willing to place a volume order

If that were all, you'd see these parts resold through distributors, just like you do for other components like transistors or DRAM or audio codecs. But you don't -- the manufacturers place restrictions on how these parts can be used, and those restrictions typically forbid their resale.

(As an aside, the same is also true of many Intel and AMD CPUs. Some parts are sold to consumers, but many others -- including non-socketed CPUs and motherboard chipsets -- are only sold directly to manufacturers, typically under restrictive terms.)

> an individual can get one of their CPUs on a single board computer

I've never seen one. There's plenty of SBCs built around ARM SoCs which are available on the open market, like Allwinnner or Rockchip, but, as far as I'm aware, Samsung and Qualcomm only sell parts to manufacturers intending to use them in end-user products.

[scarface_74]

> Can't you though

I can’t use Tesla’s infotainment system in a Ford Mustang. Tesla ties their hardware together to make a complete product.

> They all have less money -- and that's saying something.

Do you really think that those companies couldn’t afford to design a chip? Apple doesn’t have its own factory. TSMC is available to any company.

Microsoft and Google definitely had more money when Apple first started building their own chips.

> The problem is not that they made a faster CPU -- that's great. The problem is that they won't sell you the faster CPU unless you buy their phone and their OS and bind yourself to be locked into their app store.

Should all companies be required to sell their components separately?

> Would you not benefit if the 30% they take was less than 10%, and then you paid 10% less and the app developer got 10% more which they could use to make more and better apps?

Most of the popular services are either already available as subscriptions inside and outside of the App Store or there is not even an option to subscribe through in app purchases.

> Normal retailers show the customer the price, which they can then compare with other retailers. If they were charging 30% when five other competitors were charging 5%, their prices would be higher. When there are no competing retailers because Apple prohibits them, the only information for the customer to use to evaluate the cost of using Apple's store is the amount they charge to the developer.

Before Spotify completely removed in app subscriptions, they in fact did have a cheaper price if you described directly than if you went through the App Store. For awhile CBS All Access (now Paramount+) does the same thing.

> Which is fine. But then they still don't need to shake down the game developers because they can charge a license fee to manufacture the hardware in the same way that ARM does.

Or they can choose to not be in that market and just sell on PCs.

> I'm more concerned with what small companies can do

Small companies also can’t build cars. Does that mean it’s anti competitive? Microsoft wasn’t a small company when it failed and neither was Nokia. Why blame on anti competitiveness when it’s clearly incompetence.

[AnthonyMouse]

> I can’t use Tesla’s infotainment system in a Ford Mustang. Tesla ties their hardware together to make a complete product.

We keep having the same debate. You point out something that isn't anti-competitively tying to products together, like McDonalds having a trademark on Quarter Pounder, but that isn't the same thing, so it isn't a problem. You point out something that is anti-competitively tying products together, like game consoles requiring customers to use their store for games, which is the same thing, and is therefore also bad.

This is finally something which is at least ambiguous, but it's still not that interesting.

If the reason you can't use the infotainment system is that the software expects you to have an electric car and the Mustang isn't one and retrofitting it in there is a lot of work, you can still use it, it's just a lot of work.

By contrast, if they purposely lock the thing with DRM or contractual terms that prohibit you from transplanting it then it's clearly an anti-competitive practice that should be prohibited.

> Do you really think that those companies couldn’t afford to design a chip? Apple doesn’t have its own factory. TSMC is available to any company.

They not only have to design a chip, they have to outbid anyone else for use of TSMC's latest process, for which the company with the most money wins.

> Microsoft and Google definitely had more money when Apple first started building their own chips.

Apple started building their own chips in 2010, by which time they were already somewhat bigger than Google and the same size as Microsoft. And their chips from then were nothing special.

> Should all companies be required to sell their components separately?

They should if it's not a fungible component otherwise available in the market from someone else.

But also, why wouldn't they want to do this, if not for some kind of anti-competitive practice? Someone wants to give you money. Shut up and take their money.

The fact that they don't do it voluntarily is the argument for actually breaking them up, because just forcing them to sell the CPU is going to encourage compliance trolling like putting the same margin on the CPU by itself as they do on the entire iPhone.

> Most of the popular services are either already available as subscriptions inside and outside of the App Store or there is not even an option to subscribe through in app purchases.

How does that apply to apps?

> Before Spotify completely removed in app subscriptions, they in fact did have a cheaper price if you described directly than if you went through the App Store. For awhile CBS All Access (now Paramount+) does the same thing.

Originally that wasn't allowed. Then they allowed it, but you couldn't actually reference the lower price external option from the app. Then, as part of an antitrust settlement in Japan, they allowed it:

https://9to5mac.com/2021/09/01/apple-will-let-developers-red...

Amazing the benefits of a little antitrust enforcement.

Now if only it applied to apps and not just subscriptions.

> Or they can choose to not be in that market and just sell on PCs.

So the problem is that the console maker is shaking them down for 30%. What a given developer's net margin is depends on the developer, but let's say it was 40%. Going from 40% to 10% is bad. Your proposed to solution is for them to go from 10% to zero. That doesn't solve the problem?

> Small companies also can’t build cars.

Well sure they can. They just can't design one from the ground up.

Being able to buy the individual components separately is what enables them to build cars. Your compatriot brought up the Chelsea Truck Company, which the internet says has two employees.

But that's how it starts. The original Tesla Roadster was based on a Lotus Elise. The ability to do that is critical for new competitors to enter the market, so you don't have to be a gorilla from the first day.

> Microsoft wasn’t a small company when it failed and neither was Nokia. Why blame on anti competitiveness when it’s clearly incompetence.

Microsoft's failure (irony be damned) was strongly attributable to anti-competitive practices. People actually liked their phones and their OS. But it had no apps, so it has no users, so it had no apps.

And Apple prohibits the sort of things one might use to overcome that, like cross-platform frameworks or languages.

Otherwise why has no one succeeded in establishing a third platform here? Not just Microsoft; Plasma, postmarketOS, Mobian, PureOS, Ubuntu Touch, LuneOS, Tizen, /e/, CalyxOS, KaiOS, SailfishOS, FirefoxOS, Facebook Home etc. -- none of them has ever had more than trivial market share. It's not for lack of attempts. Several of these are from major corporations like Samsung and Facebook, or large communities like Mozilla and Debian/Ubuntu. Are they all incompetent, or is something else going on here?

[scarface_74]

> If the reason you can't use the infotainment system is that the software expects you to have an electric car and the Mustang isn't one and retrofitting it in there is a lot of work, you can still use it, it's just a lot of work.

So you think you can use the Tesla infotainment system that is tightly integrated with other electronics in its car if you are “willing to do a lot of work”?

> So the problem is that the console maker is shaking them down for 30%. What a given developer's net margin is depends on the developer, but let's say it was 40%. Going from 40% to 10% is bad. Your proposed to solution is for them to go from 10% to zero. That doesn't solve the problem?

Or you know you just raise your price so the wholesale price is enough to be profitable - just like goods sellers have been doing since the beginning of time. You realize that the markup from wholesale to retail is usually a lot higher than 30% don’t you?

> Originally that wasn't allowed. Then they allowed it, but you couldn't actually reference the lower price external option from the app. Then, as part of an antitrust settlement in Japan, they allowed it:

Spotify was doing that in 2015

https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8913105/spotify-apple-app-...

> Being able to buy the individual components separately is what enables them to build cars. Your compatriot brought up the Chelsea Truck Company, which the internet says has two employees.

And cell phone manufacturers can also design phones and get all the parts they need.

And car manufacturers can buy the components they need for their infotainment system that supports both Android Auto and CarPlay. But they can’t use Tesla’s software.

> Microsoft's failure (irony be damned) was strongly attributable to anti-competitive practices. People actually liked their phones and their OS. But it had no apps, so it has no users, so it had no apps.

Microsoft had Windows Mobile and Windows CE phones years before the iPhone existed.

Heck they couldn’t even release a good version of their own Office products for their own phones and they just gave up.

> And Apple prohibits the sort of things one might use to overcome that, like cross-platform frameworks or languages

This is also not true. There are plenty of cross platform frameworks that work with iOS and Android devices. Are you really admitting that you never heard of Flutter by a little company named Google? Microsoft also has a C# based framework that supports iOS and Android. There is also React Native.

> Otherwise why has no one succeeded in establishing a third platform here?

So you’re blaming Apple for this with only 20% worldwide market share?

Do you also blame Apple for the “year of the desktop Linux” not happening and Firefox being crushed by Chrome?