I'm not sure it's possible to create a hugely successful iPhone app that isn't on the App Store. Apple has a monopoly and is using it to squeeze excessive fees from developers.
The business could choose to launch on Android only, and hope that convinces consumers to switch, but that's about it for options.
It's functionally impossible to release an app on iOS without paying Apple.
Compared to the 0% of self-publishing, Apple's fees are excessive.
Apple's fees aren't excessive because they offer their services and provide their value to every app published through their store. Yes, they could offer a way to publish the app without those features and not charge the fee but that would further complicate the experience for users. I mean, technically, companies are absolutely allowed to host apps for users to side load themselves. It's just that no one wants to do that because it's not worth it when the costs Apple are taking are actually reasonable.
Valve gets 30% of apps distributed using Steam. In other words, only companies that value Steam at the 30% premium will use it -- and many of them don't. Meanwhile Steam has to be responsive to customers because it has competition, so it's forced to be a better product than monopoly app stores.
It's like saying that $25 is "the market price" for eight ounces of tuna fish because there are restaurants that charge that price and some people patronize them, so a monopoly that charges $50/pound in all cases is not charging unreasonable prices.
Whereas most Android phones come with Google apps and the Play Store as the only ways to get new apps.
For IOS though, fortnite launched it in the IOS store because there is no real practical way to get users to install their app outside of Apples app store.
I’m getting very tired of the phrase “de facto” bandied about in front of monopoly as a way to use the latter word in a way that has no legal or technical merit. Words have meanings. Apple has a walled garden which competes with similar products, it’s just that Apple’s is better in many ways. They have a valuable audience, they don’t suffe from the security issues of their competitors, and that may make you want to use them. So use them, or don’t, and accept the trade-offs.
Don’t like Apple? Try android, their competition in the same space.
People just want something they can’t have, so they play word games to make themselves sound righteous rather than selfish or petulant. No amount of talking around the issue or downvotes changes it, and it’s why an AG will laugh in your face if you claim Apple is violating antitrust regulations with their system.
Which is likewise why Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones.
> Apps is the space for competition, and Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on apps, or phones. In fact you can almost always get the same apps on multiple platforms.
The market isn't the app market itself, it's not that there aren't a hundred flashlight apps, it's the distribution market. All the flashlight apps have to come through Apple.
It's as if Walmart is the only retailer in California. That there are arbitrarily many manufacturers or that other retailers exist in Florida doesn't mean they don't have a retail monopoly in California.
And the fact is you can't get an app for your iPhone from the Play Store. They aren't the same market because they can't be substituted for each other.
IOS device software distribution -> apple has a monopoly
High end phones -> apple probably has a monopoly
Total revenue of phones sold -> apple probably has a monopoly
Number of phones (in use?) by OS -> android has a monopoly
Number of computers by OS -> nobody has a monopoly http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share
Which is why it matters if there are close substitutes or not.
> IOS device software distribution -> apple has a monopoly
There are no good substitutes for this. There is no viable alternative for distributing apps to the people with iOS devices. Distributing apps to people with Android devices isn't a substitute because they're different people, in the same way that distribution in the Northeast is not a substitute for distribution in the Southwest.
> High end phones -> apple probably has a monopoly
There are high end Android phones that are probably adequate substitutes. But if there weren't (or you think they aren't adequate substitutes) then sure.
> Total revenue of phones sold -> apple probably has a monopoly
The market you've specified is "phones" which is obviously not something Apple has a monopoly on. Whole Foods doesn't have a monopoly on food just because they have high margins. There are tons of non-Apple phones if all you need to satisfy to be part of the market is to be a phone.
It may even be a weak market definition because it's too broad -- a feature phone isn't a very good substitute for an iPhone. A better market definition might be smartphones, but even then they still don't have a monopoly. It's not about revenue or margins, it's a question of whether the consumer has a reasonable alternative supplier of something sufficiently equivalent.
> Number of phones (in use?) by OS -> android has a monopoly
The market in that case is would be "phone OS" but then Android has the obvious competition from iOS. Also, Android isn't a company, it's a product. It's nearly impossible for a piece of open source software to have "a monopoly" when literally everyone is allowed to supply it and anyone can do so at trivial cost. All the Android phone manufacturers are each independent suppliers of it.
> Number of computers by OS -> nobody has a monopoly
The market in that case is "computer OS" which is a poor market definition because desktop and phone operating systems are poor substitutes for each other.
This is why I think we need a new way of identifying market abuse.
> The problem with what the EU is doing is that they aren't interested in applying a rigorous standard.
Yeah, this is what I and a lot of other people have a problem with these EU antitrust laws and even GDPR . In the google case, they literally had the android play clauses set from day 1 when they had 0% market share and instead of telling google that they could no longer bundle chrome/search to the play store now that they reached 50% market share in mobile OS (their magic antitrust metric), they waited 7 years and then threw a ridiculous fine at them. If the laws were clear, this wouldn't be a problem.
I can’t understand this at all. If I go through the trouble to create a product and I want to control the user experience for that product, that’s my right and privilege. The market will decide if they want to purchase my product or not.
Consumers have spoken, and spoken extremely loudly, that they like Apple’s approach. Why would you want to deny the right for this product to exist?
It’s an amazing product, and what Apple has accomplished with their App Store is nothing short of incredible. I love their approach and I think they are 100% entitled to charge what they want on their own marketplace.
Neither does my opinion, of course. And either way, the fact that people like the Apple user experience doesn't mean they like or are even informed about the benefits and drawbacks of the iOS App Store model. They may have spoken for that model, or they may hate that model but still buy iPhones because they communicate with the rest of their Apple devices, or because the hardware is innovative and superior, or because they don't want to be tracked by a much scarier surveillance machinery. Without separating the parts and letting each compete on its own, we'll never know what about it is something consumers want and what about it they'd rather pass on.
I'm not calling for an end to products like Apple's. I think it's great that people have access to devices that follow clear policies and security practices which are guaranteed by a trustworthy party.
I do think, though, that this decision should be made by the user in the end. The opportunity to set defaults is already an extremely strong lever for the first-party vendor, and people such as yourself who like it as is have no reason to change anything about it.
I also think that competition can and should happen on different levels, and that control of e.g. hardware or system APIs should not automatically translate to exclusive control over the third-party ecosystem, unless the user explicitly wants this. One possible approach to regulating this, without preventing actual highly integrated products, could be to require the vendor to allow third-party app stores if the product ships with an app store itself. If the iOS experience is actually better with iOS App Store compared to a third-party app store with e.g. lower fees, better search and less stringent controls, why not let them battle it out and let the consumer decide?
It's important to recognize that Apple has created world-class products. It's also important to recognize that the existing duopoly is an extremely strong detractor against competition. It's like the government inviting bids for a giant construction project - if they require the bidders to do everything and the kitchen sink, then only the largest consortiums will be able to apply, whereas if the project is split into several reasonably-sized parts then smaller companies can compete as well and the end result will be cheaper, better executed and more accountable. I think we all agree that competition is a good thing, the question is how large to draw the boundary of what constitutes an integrated product and what should be considered out of scope, to compete in a different market. I think we owe it to society and to future businesses to ensure that a superior product still has a chance of succeeding in the marketplace.
I'm not sure why this is supposed to be controversial. It's not a prohibition on checking signatures, it's just a requirement to give the user the option of doing something else.
Once you sell something it's not yours anymore. Companies shouldn't be allowed to stick up everyone in an ancillary market just because they have more market power.
> I can’t understand this at all. If I go through the trouble to create a product and I want to control the user experience for that product, that’s my right and privilege. The market will decide if they want to purchase my product or not.
That's assuming that markets are perfect. What you're saying would be true if there were two versions of the iPhone, one that could only run signed apps and one that was exactly the same but can also run unsigned apps and the customer chose the first one. But that isn't the case, and because that isn't the case you end up forcing someone who wants an iPhone for a reason other than mandatory signing to accept mandatory signing (and the consequent app store monopoly) even though they don't want it. That isn't the market deciding, it's the manufacturer deciding for the market.
> Consumers have spoken, and spoken extremely loudly, that they like Apple’s approach.
This is not really supported by the evidence. The large majority of phone customers chose Android and even among iPhone customers there are multiple other reasons (hardware, UI, status signaling) to choose an iPhone even if you don't want or don't care about app gatekeeping.
The fact that customers don't want it is the whole issue. The first time most users are given a choice between installing an app they want that isn't approved or not having the app, they're going to install it. And given a choice between a distribution method that restricts apps and then charges 30% more and one that doesn't and has lower prices, they're going to pick the lower prices. Otherwise Apple wouldn't have to lock all the doors and windows from the outside -- you could just choose to never install anything outside Apple's store, even if you had the option to do otherwise.
> This is not really supported by the evidence...
This isn’t about Apple vs Android or market share. The success of iOS speaks for itself, and in particular the success of the App Store speaks for itself. It is self-evident from the billions of dollars that apps have earned (is it tens of billions now?) that the model is successful and widely used both by developers and consumers. Apple users are much more prolific spenders on the Apple App Store than users of the Android market as well, the majority of that money going directly to developers. This is partly demographics, but also partly the security, reliability, and trust provided by the walled garden.
> And given a choice between a distribution method that restricts apps and then charges 30% more and one that doesn't and has lower prices
As long as apps that are not sold through the Apple Store do not use any Apple APIs to operate, that would be fair.
But if you want to use the massive infrastructure that Apple has built [1] then I think you have to play by Apple’s rules.
The iPhone is a device which you own, yes, but it is also a massive collection of services which Apple spends 10s of billions of dollars developing and supporting in order to deliver the overall experience.
As an app developer, the APIs, services, documentation, training, support, and marketing combine to justify the 30%. The “App Store” application itself, and all the search, discovery, reviews, auto-updates, billing, services, and support is just one piece of the massive infra that Apple provides to all the apps running on its platform.
Requiring everyone to use something and then claiming that everyone wants to use it because everyone uses it is a bit circular, isn't it?
> This is partly demographics, but also partly the security, reliability, and trust provided by the walled garden.
But why do you need the walls instead of just a sign that says "now leaving Apple's garden"? If being in Apple's store means you're trusted and make more money then go be in Apple's store. That still doesn't explain why it should be prohibited for a user to install an app outside of it. And then we would find out which factors actually make the difference, instead of claiming it's this and then taking an action inconsistent with it -- if nobody wanted to install apps outside the store then there would be no reason to prohibit it because no one would be trying to do it.
> As long as apps that are not sold through the Apple Store do not use any Apple APIs to operate, that would be fair.
They don't even allow that. If they did you would soon have alternate APIs from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Canonical, Mozilla or others. But Apple encouraging that would be like Microsoft encouraging use of Sun Java. Apple gets more from people using their API than the people get from using it instead of an alternative.
I can buy a Mercedes, and if I want to I can pay a Merc dealership $1400 parts and labor for an ignition coil when the similar part andlabor for a Toyota would be $200. I can also go to a non-Merc shop and seek repairs (and take some risks) for less money. What I can’t do is buy a Mercedes, then turn around and demand that Mercedes sell their parts at Toyota rates and claim that Mercedes has a monopoly on Mercedes.
I mean I could, but I’d rightly be an object of scorn and ridicule. To go back to the WalMart analogy, they have their own store brands as well, and they’re only sold in WalMarts. Why not force them to sell from other outlets, since they’re a monopoly in your fantastical estimation? It’s legal and frankly ethical to restrict sales that way, and a world of other options exist; it’s not WalMart mayo, or no mayo ever again.
By contrast for a real illegal monopoly see Standard Oil or AT&T. If I wanted to use the phone lines, I could pay whatever they wanted or train carrier pigeons. My access to “phone” was entirely a function of whether I was willing to play their game. It wasn’t a matter of having different choices of providers and platforms and marketplaces, it was have a phone with AT&T, or don’t have a phone.
Not according to Apple.
> Why not force them to sell from other outlets, since they’re a monopoly in your fantastical estimation?
They're not a monopoly because the other stores already have products that are adequate substitutes. People can buy a different brand of laundry detergent from a different store without having to replace their washing machine.
> If I wanted to use the phone lines, I could pay whatever they wanted or train carrier pigeons.
Not true -- if you wanted to use phone line all you would have to do is go to Canada where they have non-AT&T phone lines and use them there.
Obviously it isn't very practical to leave the country every time you want to make a phone call, but how is that any different than needing to buy a new phone every time you want to buy an app?
As per usual, competition is a good answer. Competition in making iPhones is nonsensical. Competition in distributing and selling iOS apps isn't, and would be good for the market. Or at least it might be good for the market. That's the whole premise of this discussion, and for most discussions about monopolistic tendencies.