How is Apple's pay to provide content model legal? | Hacker News Reader

How is Apple's pay to provide content model legal?

Can someone better explain how Apple's app store model is legal/what led to this situation? When Microsoft first invented the Windows OS, did they get to charge 30% to everyone that built a software program that worked on Windows? (for all I know they did/do.. I'm just wondering how this ended up the way things are).

Apple has a monopoly over any content provider that is marketing to someone that uses an Apple device. You would think that they'd have to allow other marketplaces (app stores) to exist on their devices, same as Windows had to allow other web browers, accounting programs, etc.

Thanks for any info Dan

View on HN

I presume you are talking about the iPhone app store.

Apple did it because they can. For their money vendors get development tools, marketing and distribution assistance plus, of course, access to the marketplace.

Its the same with supermarkets or big stores. Want them to sell your stuff? By and large you have to do it on their terms.

If the state I lived in only had one supermarket chain, and the only way I could shop somewhere else was if I moved to another state, that supermarket chain would be called a monopoly, yes? Just because I can move to another state doesn't mean that the sole supermarket chain in my current state isn't a monopoly.

You don't need to move to another state, just use another phone. You can't argue that the Honda Civic alternator won't work on your Mercedes, and the part is only made by Mercedes. When you bought the Benz, they locked you in. You can go somewhere else to get service. But guess what, that mechanic will have to purchase the part from the Mercedes supplier. That is true lock in. Same with servicing the on board computer software. You want the updates? Sorry, only available through Mercedes and Mercedes suppliers. Oh sure you can go to Joe Bobs Auto Service, but then HE will have to order from Mercedes or a Mercedes supplier.

OP was right, this model has been around a while.

I'm not arguing that a Honda Civic alternator won't work in my Mercedes and that's a bad thing. That's like saying I'm upset that apps built for the Google OS don't work for an Apple OS. I'm wondering why I can't buy an 'aftermarket' part for my Mercedes without Mercedes taking a cut.

Last time I checked, I could buy a new sound system for my car without paying the original manufacturer. Buy new tires for my car without paying the original manufacturer. I can buy a new engine that's not built by Mercedes as long as it fits in the engine compartment, can't I?

Or am I wrong and Mercedes does get a cut of my new tires, even if they aren't tires that Mercedes builds itself?

Also, if I do buy a new engine that needs to specially fit into my awesome Mercedes, I do pay my mechanic a small fee, but the mechanic is the one that makes it work in my Mercedes (the programmer that makes the program work on an Apple OS). I also pay the manufacturer of the engine (the programmer that manufactures the program).

Just to be clear, I LOVE Apple for almost everything, and have owned an Iphone for years. Have used Apples for work and will readily admit that they're the absolute best you can buy for design work. Also, sorry if I use incorrect terminology at any point (I'm a business student). I'm just trying to wrap my head around how this situation became legal.

I sincerely appreciate all of the feedback about this subject, and I hope nobody takes offense if I argue points back. I'm simply trying to learn more about the situation, and arguing a point and being proven wrong is the best way I've found that I can learn more about the current issues in tech.

Just having a monopoly is not illegal. It is only when this monopoly position is abused that it is illegal.

Apple does not have a monopoly over the mobile phone space, and therefore I highly doubt what they are doing is illegal.

Because no-one's challenged it in court.

Historical precedents have been mixed. Games consoles have been allowed to retain exclusivity for software but not hardware (controllers, etc.). Printers haven't been allowed to reject third party refills.

The only way for there to be a clear judgement would be a trial.

Do you know if there were any legal cases regarding these issues, or if that's simply the way things worked out?

I'm sure I can find the cases if there were some, so please don't search for them if you don't know them off hand.

Thanks again Dan

I seem to recall Nintendo was one of them (Atari vs Nintendo would be my guess but I'm not 100% sure), but I'm afraid I don't have the citations to hand.

http://segaretro.org/SEGA_vs._Accolade

SEGA only wanted licensed developers to develop for the Mega Drive, so they required a piece of code in order for a game to boot. This piece of code included the SEGA trademark. The thought was that if any unlicensed games appeared, SEGA could sue for trademark violation. SEGA sued when Accolade started producing unlicensed carts for the Mega Drive. The courts ruled against SEGA saying that since the code was functional, not expressive, there was no trademark violation.

"monopoly over apple devices" doesn't equal illegal monopoly.

So, I don't think there's a legal issue at all, especially since Android exists and is doing well.

I guess I'm asking more if Microsoft was allowed to charge anyone that built/builds a program for Windows. By your logic, they should be allowed to, because Apple OS/Linux exist.

Now that Apple OS for desktops/laptops is more widely used and Microsoft doesn't have complete control of the OS market, could Microsoft start charging software makers that wanted to provide content on a Windows machine?

They sell Visual Studio, don't they? It's not the only toolchain for Windows, but it's likely the most popular toolchain.

It's Microsoft's OS. The reason that they got in trouble is that they unfairly used their market position to kick competitors (Lotus, Netscape, Novell) out. I doubt it would be illegal if they decided to charge everyone equally based on either units shipped or royalty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com