101–110 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A better analogy would be if Microsoft opened an app store on the XBox (which they have/do) and then blocked Sony from selling apps there, or charged Sony a premium rate." Which Apple is not doing.
So Apple charges their own music service a 30% fee?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. There's nothing "antitrust" about the App Store operation, since Apple isn't a monopoly -- it's in fact a minority player in the mobile market. (And no, you can't be a "monopoly on your own platform" -- it has to be the overall market). In fact game console manufactures (among many other fields) have historically had much more draconian res…
The app store itself is a monopoly. Apple then leverages its monopoly in app stores on Apple's platform into other business (Apple Music, eBooks, digital video, etc). This is anti-competitive behaviour and illegal. Only legal gap is declaring Apple's app store on its platform a monopoly, the second that is done then everything else naturally falls into place and Apple receives antitrust violations.
Not in the legal sense of the word, so no.
To put it simply, monopoly is not "only a company dictates the rules/has near total share/control of their own marketplace/platform".
It's "only a company dictates the rules/has near total share/control of the general market".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Sibling comment covers this perfectly. - Fast lanes for their services with ISPs. I haven't heard of this, it just seems like a good idea from the ISPs side given how big Apple is. Do you have any evidence they've actually forced someone to do this? - Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music. You mean a pretty st…
> Sibling comment covers this perfectly. Which one? The one that asked if it was wrong for carriers to block updates in the first place? Right vs wrong isn't my concern here. Here is the sum of my comment: Apple used their market pressure to make carriers (and others) change. Now they're whining about somebody trying to make them change. That's all. I didn't say that I have evidence that they force carriers to do any…
That case never made sense except as a way to generate headlines by attacking Apple.
Amazon had a TRUE monopoly in eBooks and WAS abusing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. They have plenty of garbage rules of their own. Also, they have the same rule Apple does in this case.
No, they don't have the same rule, nor Spotify, nor Netflix nor Amazon music have to use Google payment system
Right there.
"Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment"
The exceptions are for physical things, and for things that can be used outside of the app. You can't use a Spotify subscription outside of Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. And Apple has a monopoly on the entire Apple app store market. > You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market. Law is expansive. When competition laws were written several securities didn't really exist, but the law expanded to encompass them. There's no specific reason why the law c…
"And Apple has a monopoly on the entire Apple app store market." That's not the market. Mobile Software in general is the market. "There's no specific reason why the law cannot expand into protecting consumers from monopolies within an artificially created digital marketplace." Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace. Android exists, and has several app stores. "Ultimately compe…
Now who's making up arbitrary markets?
> Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace.
Apple allows no other app stores on its platform. There is no competition.
> Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android still exists.
Android is not allowed on Apple's hardware or in Apple's ecosystem.
> I love when one side of a discussion is completely wrong and is not contributing to the discussion.
So instead of a discussion you just want others to agree with your perspective otherwise, to you, they're "not contributing." So essentially to you there are two types of conversations: An echo chamber (contributing) or disagreement (not contributing).
You're right, I'm not contributing to your echo chamber by having the audacity of disagreeing with your baseless opinion presented as fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores." Which is irrelevant, as Spotify can still sell apps through those stores. Remember, the market is mobile as a whole, not just iOS. "You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in fact made." It is currently an established fac…
> It is currently an established fact. If that changes, then we will have to revisit. But as of now, it stands. It hasn't been ruled on. So, no, it hasn't been established. > Remember, the market is mobile as a whole, not just iOS. Why are you copying and pasting? I won't reply to this again, you already posted this above.
Rephrasing the same thing, while refusing to understand terms with clear formal definitions, is not that different from copying and pasting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "What infrastructure tax? Spotify is not using Apple's infrastructure to serve the music" They're using Apple's infrastructure to distribute their app to millions of people globally. They're also getting access to Apple's payment infrastructure and the huge database of payment information Apple holds. The reason Apple forced IAP in the first place was so that users on small phones didn't have to enter address and…
> They're using Apple's infrastructure to distribute their app to millions of people globally. This is paid with the $99/year developers pay > They're also getting access to Apple's payment infrastructure and the huge database of payment information Apple holds. No, they are FORCED to use Apple payment infrastructure. Spotify has their own and they are very glad to use it if they are allowed
Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. and by happen, I mean filed in a court. There is nothing "applied equally" to other developers. Onlookers will say developers agreed to the contract, so no sympathy, a Federal Judge on the other hand will rip that contract to shreds and take a dim view on Apple's practices. And no, Google Play's robo rejector isn't exempt.
> Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. There's nothing "antitrust" about the App Store operation, since Apple isn't a monopoly -- it's in fact a minority player in the mobile market. (And no, you can't be a "monopoly on your own platform" -- it has to be the overall market). In fact game console manufactures (among many other fields) have historically had much more draconian res…
The question then becomes not "does Apple have a monopoly," which it obviously does not, but rather "is Apple abusing its position in the marketplace," which leads to the much trickier question of where to draw the line between legitimately using a dominant position and abusing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Why the fuck should they "ask the ISP"?
I think he meant cell carrier, not ISP. But I disagree with him on this one. I'm glad Apple was able to get "special treatment" for many things from the carriers. They were more draconian than Apple with their rules. Now Android can also install firmware and applications without the carriers saying no so that was a good thing.