It bugs me how this is an argument in "app store is not a monopoly". App stores (both Google and Apple) have a huge profit margin which is based on abusing it's position and they are milking the fact that creating competition would cost billions of dollars - this is exactly the situation where a pure market situation ends up being sub-optimal and hurting the consumers.
Consider what would happen if Mastercard and Visa proclaimed that you can no longer accept cash if you want to accept their services ! And then someone would say "but Mastercard is not a monopoly neither is Visa". At one point they even managed to make it illegal to transfer the transaction fees to user visibly as surcharge - but you are still allowed to have a "cash only discount" - Apple and Google are effectively killing this option by preventing third party payment systems and people are saying "they aren't a monopoly".
Fixing this should be pretty straightforward and should apply to all digital app stores :
a) force equal access to these stores (anyone who can legally apply must be able to, irregardless of their relation with store owner, eg. Epic vs Apple, there should be some provisions about what kind of content is not acceptable - but this should be defined on platform basis and enforced consistently, otherwise it should grant you basis for damages suit)
b) force app stores to accept all payment forms in-app (that comply to payment processing standards) - people here claim that app store payment provides them with security, convenience, etc. and I agree - but if I was given the option at a 25% markup (other payment providers aren't free either) I go for other option every time. At 10% over standard payment provider it's a different story - and that's still an insanely profitable spot for them. Point is - consumers decide what benefits them.
c) force app store reviews to follow specific guidelines: time limit on feedback, require explicit feedback of rule violations when you get denied access - to allow appeals through courts if the review process gets abused
> That said, I don't see how the App Store is a monopoly. How would "monopoly" be defined to even formulate a case against Apple?
I think the argument would be fairly straightforward: the App Store is the exclusive avenue to distribute paid applications to iPhone users. In so doing, it acts as a single seller of applications to consumers and a single buyer of applications from developers, and its arbitrarily-set fees are incorporated into prices.
The fine parsing comes in whether "iPhone users" are a sufficiently distinct market to effectively make the App Store a monopoly, and I think reasonable people could have different opinions here.
Customers don't care about this lol. This creates a worse experience for customers if anything and the App Store in no way cannot be described as a monopoly
No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices.
"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."
Which will not happen, because you can't have a monopoly on your own platform.
Competition helps consumers with pricing. We don't have that now.
Apple can and does charge whatever they want. From a capitalistic point of view that's fine IMHO.
But not allowing alternative app-stores and controlling what apps there can do (i.e. forced to use their dated webview and their payment options, can't have copy/links to point to alternative payments etc) or simple stalling apps in the inconsistent 'review' process for weeks/months, hurts the consumer and developer. i.e. lack of market forces.
If your city/country had just one supermarket with unlimited shelf space (i.e. the Apple app store), they could and will charge whatever checkout-fee they wanted (which ultimately gets passed onto the consumer). They disallow alternative stores from springing up that could cater for alternatives. They can prevent your cereal from appearing on the shelf because it's not unique enough or goes against their politics/principals.
I'm an adult I don't need to be coddled.
With this in mind, one can understand why people are starting to use the word 'monopoly' more and more.
I believe in the free market and that's why I write for the web, where there's free competition. Feel free to compete with me and charge whatever you can.
There does seem to be a conflation of “unfair competition” and “monopoly” going on. Generally speaking of this debate, that is.
The App Store is a service rendered to its customers, the likes of Spotify. In the form of the hosting of the app, and all the backend behind that like in-app storage (iCloud). The code review and ‘security guarantee’ that Apple holds over Google and other rivals is also a cost.
IMHO this boils down to subsidy, on the part of digital services companies, publishing apps, subsidise the free and “real world” goods and services company’s that go unlevied for their participation.
It’s a bit like at carnivals, when food trucks pay to get a place, and are often expected to pay a commission on their profits too. But the charity stands, and free ‘workshops’ for kids etc. don’t pay to be their, because their providing a different service.
The OP article argues that it is a monopoly. You are free to agree or disagree with its thesis. However, my statement was that "if Apple's control of the App Store platform constitutes a monopoly", then the government should have free rein to do so, as it has repeatedly done so in the past.
A monopoly needs to dominate the market. Apple is not, it does not dominate the smartphone or mobile OS market. People on here can't get past this basic fact.
> It is unfair if they are engaging in anti-competitive practices to prevent competitions from competing.
Which has been proven untrue - because there are 2 million apps on the marketplace. The rules are out there. I haven't seen a case where the rules were violated and nothing was done.
> Allowing alternative apps stores to compete against apple's would make it fair, and giving users the option and ability to do this, easily. So, specifically I should be able to install a Steam, or epic app store, on the iphone, without apple having any ability at all to stop me, or take a cut.
This is a significant risk to the product. Opening it up means that the quality of the product and consumer suffers. The competing app store is the Play Store. Feel free to switch to that OS.
> Of course it is. If you have a monopoly, then the harm is on the customers of the market. That includes both buyers and sellers. That is how monopolies work.
Sigh. It isn't a monopoly, but I'll humor you. Go ask any iPhone user what they think about the app store. I highly doubt you'll find any significant figure upset.
An app store isn't a monopoly, it's a two-sided marketplace. If you claim it's a monopoly then it should also be a monopsony, which would cancel out most of it.
Your argument, if you can call it that, is completely incoherent.
You seem to be under the impression that anti-trust is isolated to monopolies, when clearly it is not. Apple and Google do not need to have a monopoly for the government to decide that their app store business model is anti-competitive, and there doesn't need to be precedence.
Did you read the link you just posted? Seriously. It clearly states what I said, and contradicts what you said. As per YOUR LINK, you don't need a monopoly for antitrust; just "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market."
Apple unambiguously has this with their app store.
Apple has a monopoly on the "market" (portion) that pays for apps. That's not as clean a definition of market as you would want. The defining characteristics of this market are also (arguably) inconveniently dependent on the offending practices. IE iphone user pay because it is easy, because there is a single payment provider, because users don't have to worry about a cheaper option some roundabout way, etc. etc.
Then there is the problem that any platform, regardless of overall marketshare is something like a little local monopoly. Our definitions of monopoly don't really work here but platforms can still exhibit a lot of what anti-monopoly rules are trying to prevent.
The fee would be alright if the ecosystem of app store apps was fair. When Google bans those kinds of apps from their store and Apple doesn't even support 3rd party app stores on their devices, it makes the argument of a monopoly a lot more forseeable.
Apple has a monopoly for apps stores on iOS devices.
> A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.
Commodity: Apps sales on iOS. Only supplier: Apple.
Apple use their monopolistic market position to enforce a 30% levy on third parties. It has nothing at all to do with Google, since Google cannot compete with Apple to provide app stores on iOS.
Even bringing Google up is an attempt to shift the conversation from the app store situation on iOS to something off-topic and irrelevant (handset market share). That's not what we're discussing.
Let's go through the markers of a monopoly:
- Profit maximizer: Maximizes profits.
Yes.
- Price maker: Decides the price of the good or product to be sold, but does so by determining the quantity in order to demand the price desired by the firm.
Yes.
- Single seller: In a monopoly, there is one seller of the good, who produces all the output. Therefore, the whole market is being served by a single company, and for practical purposes, the company is the same as the industry.
Yes, Apple is the exclusive provider.
- Price discrimination: A monopolist can change the price or quantity of the product.
Yes.
So the Appe Store on iOS checks all the markers of a monopoly. But people want to pretend the monopoly designation can only apply to traditional market segments without justification.
I think this debate is interesting, but I don't expect Apple to be happy about the final outcome. A developer publishing solely on Apple's App Store (and relying solely on Apple features to provide functionality) has no direct access to the customer* - Apple prevents that fairly well. In this case, I feel like, as a consumer, I'm Apple's customer. I think courts, and especially juries, would agree.
That said, I don't see how the App Store is a monopoly. How would "monopoly" be defined to even formulate a case against Apple?
* - notwithstanding that many apps want you to create an account on their systems - Apple does indeed allow this.
That word gets thrown around too liberally. Does anyone expect the Apple App Store to be able to serve apps to the Android, Windows, or Linux ecosystems? Arguing that "Apple's App Store is a monopoly" is like arguing that "JCPenny is a monopoly of all goods sold at JCPenny stores". If you want to sell goods in a store, you must abide by the stipulations of a contract with that company.
Consider what would happen if Mastercard and Visa proclaimed that you can no longer accept cash if you want to accept their services ! And then someone would say "but Mastercard is not a monopoly neither is Visa". At one point they even managed to make it illegal to transfer the transaction fees to user visibly as surcharge - but you are still allowed to have a "cash only discount" - Apple and Google are effectively killing this option by preventing third party payment systems and people are saying "they aren't a monopoly".
Fixing this should be pretty straightforward and should apply to all digital app stores :
a) force equal access to these stores (anyone who can legally apply must be able to, irregardless of their relation with store owner, eg. Epic vs Apple, there should be some provisions about what kind of content is not acceptable - but this should be defined on platform basis and enforced consistently, otherwise it should grant you basis for damages suit)
b) force app stores to accept all payment forms in-app (that comply to payment processing standards) - people here claim that app store payment provides them with security, convenience, etc. and I agree - but if I was given the option at a 25% markup (other payment providers aren't free either) I go for other option every time. At 10% over standard payment provider it's a different story - and that's still an insanely profitable spot for them. Point is - consumers decide what benefits them.
c) force app store reviews to follow specific guidelines: time limit on feedback, require explicit feedback of rule violations when you get denied access - to allow appeals through courts if the review process gets abused
reply