Submitted by marketrent t3_zrkbfi in technology
paxfuturus t1_j16lj42 wrote
Reply to comment by drakesylvan in Microsoft-Activision deal: Gamers sue to stop merger by marketrent
I'm glad tech monopolies are getting shaken up generally. I'm just very pissed that Apple is getting a free pass so far when they're the most anticompetitive corporation on the planet.
lordredapple t1_j17aax6 wrote
Genuine question but what has apple monopolized? People keep saying their ecosystem is monopolized but as far as I'm concerned they should have the right to dictate which apps are available in their app store. Are you talking about this from a hardware perspective?
paxfuturus t1_j17oz6z wrote
TL;DR Apple abuses it's market dominance, harming consumers, suppressing innovative competition, etc
I'm sure you're familiar with some examples like iMessage login, exorbitant app store profiteering, intercompany hiring arrangements with other FAANG company so that people can't quit, etc.*
One important thing to note is there are several forms of monopolization, a single player monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly, etc. Certain industries are constrained by extrinsic limitations like aviation and infrastructure where there's not a lot of room for competitors. That's where increased regulation becomes more essential. But that is not the case with consumer electronics. It's the behavior that's a problem, when a company gets to the point where it controls market, suppressing innovation and abusing market forces that are supposed to keep corporations in check, that's when it's a problem. Apple is in that place and of course a handful of other technology companies.
Monopolies are bad because they have the ability to raise prices and reduce output, leading to a lack of competition and potentially harmful effects on consumers. Additionally, monopolies can often abuse their market power to stifle innovation and harm smaller competitors, leading to a less dynamic and efficient market overall.
Don't let Apple make you think that it is creating amazing new technology that is pushing consumer electronics forward. That is literally nothing but marketing. Like when Steve Jobs try to pretend he invented the capacitive touch screen and had "trademarked the hell out of it". There's almost no chance that we wouldn't be further along if it wasn't for Apple and it's monopolistic behavior. Apple has shut down so many innovative new companies, bought them out, or leveraged market dominance to suppress threats.
Monopolies are bad.
As far as Apple is concerned, there are many more but here are five:
-
Exclusive dealing: Apple has been accused of requiring app developers to only distribute their apps through the App Store, effectively preventing them from using competing app marketplaces. This can limit competition and reduce consumer choice.
-
Self-preferencing: Apple has also been accused of promoting its own apps and services over those of its competitors on its platforms. For example, Apple's App Store has been criticized for featuring its own apps more prominently than competing apps, and for making it more difficult for users to find and access alternative apps.
-
Leveraging market power: Apple's dominance in certain markets, such as the smartphone and tablet markets, has allowed it to use its market power to negotiate favorable terms with app developers and other partners. This can make it difficult for competitors to enter or succeed in these markets.
-
Acquiring potential competitors: Apple has a history of acquiring smaller companies that could potentially pose a threat to its business. This can reduce competition in a market and limit innovation.
-
Restricting access to APIs: Apple has been accused of restricting access to its APIs (application programming interfaces) to certain developers, while allowing others to access them more easily. This can make it difficult for developers of competing products to build compatible products, which can limit competition in the market.
lordredapple t1_j17tsb1 wrote
Hmm okay I see where everything is coming from then. The app store specifically though I don't. People don't have to buy an iphone to use any of the apps that aren't by apple they are available on Android. Why shouldn't apple be able to promote it's own products within it's own store? Why should they be forced to allow other app stores? I feel like this is forcing Walmart to allow a mini target to exist in a store. Also thank you for taking the time to explain everything I appreciate it a ton!
Sything t1_j17xr1e wrote
This is a gross simplification but here goes nothing;
Let’s say Pepsi buys every shop in your local area and now they’re all Pepsi stores, by your logic it’s fine if they only sell their own product, so then you’ve only Pepsi available, but in turn they also increase their prices to maximise profits after achieving this monopoly and claim to be consumer friendly while stripping consumers of choice. Apple follows a similar model but they keep a can or two of Coca Cola “on display” priced well over their own and hidden in the store behind crates of Pepsi so they can claim they’re consumer friendly.
By keeping such tight control over their App Store and not allowing consumers to use the products they’ve paid for as they please (by allowing them to modify or use whatever they’d like on it), they’re effectively “buying up all the stores” while also taking larger cuts than any other App Store on phones.
It’s not so much forcing a Walmart to allow a mini-target, it’s more-so Walmart buying everything then leaving you with no choice as there are no competitors anymore since they effectively removed them by leaving consumers with no choice but their own “store”. It’s also unfair on the developers of the apps who will usually sell their product for the same price on either store while their profits are less on iPhones for the same product thanks to apples tight control.
In my opinion, it really is just about choice, would you rather more choice/options and the ability to do what you want with the products you pay for or would you prefer a company limiting your choices for the purpose of maximising their profits.
Anyways hope ya get my point stranger, all the best!
lordredapple t1_j17y2rq wrote
Okay yeah this actually makes a ton of sense to me and I'm starting to see your point. I've always heard about apps doing shit because of apple taking a fat cut and was wondering when that would be regulated. I feel like this opens a minor possiblity for malware if apple isn't allowed to check apps on other stores, and I would say letting them check the apps on a new app store would be pointless cause then they'd say all the apps are unsafe so you should use their own. Would it not be more effective to just regulate what cut they can take from developers? Also some rules to allow consumers to make more modifications to those apps and all? Thank you by the way for explaining all that and for your time!
Sything t1_j18bpua wrote
No problem 😊 thanks for taking the time to read.
I’d agree with some form of regulation and would love to see it done on many things, but it’s very hard to do with regards to pricing services (value is subjective to most people) and with most major businesses it’s all about maximising profits so they’d look for loopholes or simply increase the price of everything so their profits remains the same and/or increase.
Sadly though Apple in particular has veered far from what most would like to see. A whole “right to repair” movement essentially sparked thanks to apples anti-consumer practices where they essentially forced customers to get repairs done in their own stores, preventing customers from finding cheaper repair alternatives. In the US they also had government help in preventing alternative/independent repair shops from using refurbished/repaired parts (these were authentic MacBook and phone parts that were fixed but blocked from delivery).
I’d have to give it to Apple that it does test the majority of software for malware but they still miss some too and there’s lots of games that would be considered malware in my opinion (damages phones or collects data across multiple apps/spyware), they only have guarantees against ‘known’ malware, so anything new that’s purpose built can bypass their detection. But generally speaking App stores on either platform don’t intentionally push malware onto consumers and do similar testing to search for known malware, it’s just easier to bypass and do on android since it’s a lot more open.
I may sound like I’m shitting on Apple but iPhones, iPads and MacBooks are good quality products albeit overpriced they tend to work great imo and everything within the Apple brand does work very well together, usually an instant plug and play.
lordredapple t1_j18dehz wrote
And thank you for taking the time to type it :) Yeah I suppose apple will do what it can to resist and it's really all dependant on the law in the EU to fix that. US law for sure won't do anything about it considering what we've seen happen with other bigger companies. I completely even forgot about the right o repair movement tbh. I'm surprised Tesla hasn't been hit by that considering that they disable people's cars for taking it to unauthorized mechanics. I feel like that's total BS. One thing I am worried is that all the apps being restricted by apple from acting like hardcore tracked (Facebook, Twitter, google, etx) will make their own app store and remove themselves from the apple one to track you as much as they want with no regulations
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments