121–130 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gmail on iOS will open Google Chrome if you have it installed. I don't know how they do it, but they definitely are doing it.
I believe the app itself (Gmail) is requesting to use Chrome. So each individual app would need to request Chrome, something I'm sure Google's apps can do, but [insert random app here] won't.
I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but it seems pretty minor compared to the fact that: 1) Apple's apps come preinstalled on every iPhone. 2) Apple's apps have permission to do things that 3rd party apps cannot. If I search for "Web Browser" on the App Store... well, technically I'll get results from third parties, but every single one is just a UI skin around Apple's own browser. That strikes me as a much larger p…
I see it differently. Since Apple makes the hardware and the software I don't have a problem with them preinstalling their own products. However, when a user is clearly searching for alternatives on the app store, it matters how far down you have to scroll to find a 3rd party app. Spotify being the 23rd result for a "music" search is absurd.
If I search for "Music" on google (incognito, google.com), spotify is nr 16 (page 2).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what if you’re not selling food, but merchandise targeted at this particular team’s fans. You can’t easily move shop to the other stadium - you have no choice but to suck up the fact that on the vendor map of the stadium, where it says merchandise, is actually Apple’s food court. Nobody is going to find your t’shirt stand.
> You can’t easily move shop to the other stadium For starters, nobody forces you to sell merchandise for this particular team's fans... But the analogy breaks down here, because merchandize such as t-shirts is not dependent on the stadium to be used. You could sell it outside the stadium. Whereas iOS software leverages the fact that the iOS is being sold, maintained, having the necessary APIs, and so on, and that iO…
So it's like you want to sell a ware that's inherently dependent on the stadium (hence my stall analogy), but you don't like the terms of the stadium builder/owner/maintainer that allows businessmen to have those stalls on their stadium...
A privately owned stadium is not be required to open up its space to third-party sellers. But once it does, it cannot then abuse its position as the landlord to interfere with the market activities of those third parties. That's the part you're missing in your fervent defense of Apple's antitrust activities--Apple didn't have to open up the app store to third parties, but having done so, they must now act in a non-abusive matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can it possibly be an anti-trust issue for a minority player in a competitive market to choose which products to display in their own retail store? This is markedly different then, for example, Google altering search results to promote their own products, because Google owns something like 90% of Search.
The app store is not a retail store. That's one of the major factors in the antitrust analysis. In the retail/wholesale model, the retail store buys the third party products and their own store brand products, and sells them both. It might favor the store brand with more promotion or better shelf placement, but both products appear on the shelves, and the third-party has generally already been compensated for their g…
Well no. What you cited was related to the Supreme Court's analysis of the App Store case, but that was only related to the issue of standing.
How it differs from brick and mortar stores buying inventory isn't relevant to the actual merits of the case, which hasn't been in court yet.
What's not fine is not being able to install a third party App Store with different policies so that users can choose whatever they prefer.
I wouldn't say I have trouble considering this issue, I know what my opinion is. The ramifications feel uncomfortable because Apple is the Goliath, it feels bizarre their behavior should need defending. The idea I get hung up on is Apple doesn't control the market, they control access to the customers companies want. And those customers made a free choice to enter apple's ecosystem. They could get an Android, they co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the analogy isn't very good. Let me try. It's as if you're the one selling all the tickets to the only stadium in town, and you make it so that when your team plays, tickets are cheaper, more abundant, and more visible. Another local team wants to play too, but their ticket prices are outrageous, there's no promotion of the event either, and they might actually be banned from the stadium unless they use ONLY…
Your analogy also isn't very good, your town has lots of other stadiums: The Samsung Galaxarium, The Googlplexel, The LG Centre, The Huawei Dome. Sure the Apple one is pretty fancy and the rules are onerous but there are plenty of other places to do business.
An iOS app/ticket/whatever wouldn't work/get you into the other "stadiums." Ergo, the market for the iOS thing does not include those other "stadiums."
Repeated for emphasis: it's irrelevant that there are other mobile app stores, because you can't sell iOS apps on them. The antitrust issues are related to Apple's actions within the iOS app market. Authorities can and do segment markets based on meaningful distinctions ,like the fact that iOS apps wouldn't work on an Android phone.
I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but it seems pretty minor compared to the fact that: 1) Apple's apps come preinstalled on every iPhone. 2) Apple's apps have permission to do things that 3rd party apps cannot. If I search for "Web Browser" on the App Store... well, technically I'll get results from third parties, but every single one is just a UI skin around Apple's own browser. That strikes me as a much larger p…
Not to mention all the Samsung bloatware.
Can I go a little off-topic and comment how really well done this webpage is? Very mobile optimized and nice the “scroll to discover” kind of behavior. Haven’t noticed how long NYT has been doing this kind of stuff but very well done.
This article has "interactive" in the URL. Note sure, but I think this is some special articles they do with a focus on just that? I believe there have been some other examples posted here previously, like this one: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quic...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Spotify being the 23rd result for a "music" search is absurd. That search term is so broad it's difficult to figure out exactly what the users intent is for that. Do they want to listen to music? Do they want to create or record music? FWIW, I just searched for "music" and saw: An ad, a story ("run with music"), apple music, two music players I've never heard of and finally Spotify in position 6.
>That search term is so broad it's difficult to figure out exactly what the users intent is for that. Search optimization. Determine what most users ultimately end up selecting for specific queries, build up your data set over time, then weigh priorities and determine result order based on that.