Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

The specifics are different, no doubt - but the ethos is the same. Microsoft force you to use .Net (of some form) and their APIs because that fits their business model (i.e. ties you to the XBox). They're restricting me from using my platform portable pure C code, which is their choice. I obviously don't know, but suspect if large amounts of code started targeting XNA in a cross platform way, they'd come down on that too. I also don't know what the requirements of their commercial licence are (and unless you're an XBox developer, neither do you), but it's almost certainly more than just revenue sharing (they would never allow the publication of a "Crash a plane into the twin towers" game, for example). Moreover, I do know that Nintendo certain did (and I think still do) have strict policies on types of violence in games for their platforms.

Regardless, the general point stands. They're making choices based on what they think is best for their platform, and letting the market chose. This is how the free market is supposed to work. It breaks down when there are entrenched monopolies, or when other external factors prevent people from exercising their right to buy an alternative, or start a competitor - but that is demonstrably not the case here. So why not let the market decide?

Exercising control over a given market ("video games for Xbox" or "software for iPhones") in which you have a monopoly is not illegal, it's when you use your monopoly to push out competitors in different markets (such as "development tools" or "mobile advertising") that the Sherman Act prohibitions on illegal tying apply.

In Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Kodak had a monopoly on replacement parts for Kodak copiers, and by refusing access to parts and manuals to their competitors, they were illegally tying their parts monopoly to the market for repair service. The Court wrote: "power gained through some natural and legal advantage such as a patent, copyright, or business acumen can give rise to liability if a seller exploits his dominant position in one market to expand his empire into the next" (504 U.S. 451, 480 n.29 (1992)).

In the case of video game makers, you may have a case if e.g. Microsoft took active steps to prevent someone like EA from creating their own version of Xbox Live (since the market for games is different than the market for online services), but I don't believe that's the case.

So Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone app store - no great surprise there. I may as well claim that Microsoft need to open the 360 marketplace to my personal ideals, because they have a monopoly on licensing XBox 360 games.

The Android app store certainly exists, and is doing quite well. The web is free for all platforms. Apple don't, by any realistic measure, have a monopoly on application sales for smartphones. They just couldn't - with only 25% of the smartphone market, and an app store that targets only that 25%, how can they have a monopoly on smartphone app publication? What they might have is a monopoly on the wealthy gadget consumer with large amounts of disposable income to spend on apps. I'm not, however, that Apple's clever demographic targeting, coupled with the inability of their competitors to eat into this market via fair competition, is reason to force them to change their business model.

>> Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard).

cough The development for mobile phones partially sucked (and still does, partially; it's in the nature of the beast I suppose, for now) before the iPhone, but I don't know about it being not allowed. You have to draw a distinction between so called feature-phones and smart-phones here. Feature-phone dev was and still is largely restricted (not to mention uninteresting from most POVs) but the same cannot be said about smart-phones. Seeing how the iPhone is supposed the be a smart-phone, we should compare it to those I think. And to that end, I seem to remember writing mobile apps for Windows Mobile and Symbian long before the iPhone existed. Some of that writing didn't even suck that much and I definitely didn't have to ask nobody's permission to distribute the apps. Python for S60 [1] appeared before the iPhone not to mention the c/c++ based toolchains from MS and others. Even the appstore concept is not really Apple's invention, Handango predates it by quite some margin for example.

>> In many ways, the iPhone has been the founding of "open" phone development

I don't know in how many were those ways. I would say it made it's (phone development) products cool (albeit not yet mainstream) for the masses, and that is very nice and respectable, but "founding" and "inventing" and "reinventing" are just hyperbole filled, marketing words that Apple touts around.

>> Post iPhone, we've seen actual competition in this space - the entirely open Android strategy (though their App Store also has restrictions, they just apply them post-release rather than pre-release); the semi-closed iPhone and Nokia Ovi models, the web app model of all the platforms.

A few lines up, you were talking about "phone development" and I assumed you were referring to application development because you mentioned carriers platform locks. Now you refer to appstores. Not the same thing. And even there, there was competition [2].

>> People claiming that Apple has created a locked-down environment have very short memories

I would argue that it's somebody else exhibiting short memory here but I have already.

>> even the closed nature of the App Store via 3.3.1 would have been considered insanely open only 5 years ago. No... it would not have been. Again, please see [2].

The thing is, we had "open for development" smart phones before the iPhone. The platforms were less cool. Some of today's platforms, that are still more "open for development" are more cool in at least some ways that the iPhone.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_for_S60 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_distribution_pl...

Interface guidelines and look and feel matter a lot less when you are making a game doing OpenGL. This is a big market where Flash apps could have competed quite nicely with the Objective-C apps and Apple is blocking that for no actual reason.

Games consume a lot of resources (battery included) anyhow so it's really hard to claim doing it in Objective-C is in any way better.