51–60 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a monopoly, and it's illegal.
Apple does not have a monopoly on phones. Not even smartphones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a monopoly, and it's illegal.
Apple clearly has competitors that have a much larger share of the market.
Can we just link directly to the advocacy group's page ( https://appfairness.org/ )? I'm not certain the article is adding anything. ---- I'm generally supportive of at least some of Epic's arguments towards Apple, and I do believe that Apple (and multiple other FAANG companies) are engaged in anti-competitive behavior that's currently hurting the market. But a lot of the arguments I'm reading on the App Fairness sit…
Website's broken on my Firefox, won't scroll.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a monopoly, and it's illegal.
Apple does not have a monopoly on phones. Not even smartphones.
You think there is a chance in hell Apple and Google are not going to continue the trend of restricting devs and taking bigger profit shares for the "privilege" of being in the store? Its only going to get worse. Good for them for standing up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a monopoly, and it's illegal.
Calling a company that has ~13% of the market share in mobile devices is quite the take. It will never hold up in court.
>If you run a platform where others come to sell, then you don’t get to sell your own items on the platform because you have two comparative advantages. One, you’ve sucked up information about every buyer and every seller before you’ve made a decision about what you’re going to sell. And second, you have the capacity — because you run the platform — to prefer your product over anyone else’s product. It gives an enormous comparative advantage to the platform.
"The Coalition for App Fairness", I cannot not laugh. On the stage you have: Epic - Trying to be the next Valve/Steam. Happy to rip off their customers via in-game transactions. Spotify - Who rip off artists by either failing or paying very little in royalties. Tinder - Sells sex. None of these companies have any care for the actual developer; who are the folk trying to make a living from their creations.
Tinder sells rejections and disappointments too.
Can we just link directly to the advocacy group's page ( https://appfairness.org/ )? I'm not certain the article is adding anything. ---- I'm generally supportive of at least some of Epic's arguments towards Apple, and I do believe that Apple (and multiple other FAANG companies) are engaged in anti-competitive behavior that's currently hurting the market. But a lot of the arguments I'm reading on the App Fairness sit…
Website's broken on my Firefox, won't scroll.
Apple built their controlled ecosystem and set their rules. And now others are insisting that Apple should not have that control (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).
It's a monopoly, and it's illegal.
It's using an advantage in one area to force concessions in an unrelated area that I believe is illegal.
For example, Microsoft had an effective monopoly over PC operating systems.
That was unfortunate, but not illegal.
It was when they used that monopoly to disadvantage a rival browser maker --- Netscape -- that they broke anti-trust law.
I'm most interested in seeing what happens over Apple's decisions to force app providers to use Apple Sign-in if the offer any other 3rd party SSO.
As a developer, I may have valid security concerns regarding Apple Sign-in.
So their app store dominance seems unrelated to SSO infrastructure. And I don't fully understand how they can force me to use it if I decide to support Google or Facebook SSO in my app.
So I do wonder if that is an anti-trust violation.