Hacker News Reader

Comment by resolutefunctor | Hacker News Reader

There is a lot I hate about building apps and releasing them on the App Store, and I'd be happy for there to be alternatives. But that said, I don't understand how its a monopoly. There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices. There are other devices and means for software delivery out there. What makes their control of their own ecosystem monopolistic? As someone who has paid the apple tax for digital sales, it sucks but I'm also choosing to try to capture that market and that's the cost of doing business.

I'm not smart enough to get into the politics of other parts of the world, but just because the EU found something illegal doesn't mean its the basis of a good lawsuit under the US rules. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

View on HN

Monopoly effects can be cascading.

Microsoft was hit with monopoly on browser even though you can install anything or go buy a Mac.

But when you control a huge portion of the PC market, and you put it in by default, you are cascading your monopolistic benefits down to installed software.

Apple does not have complete domination of smartphone across all demographics, but they do have domination in many segments.

For example, it is estimated that around 88% of teenagers have iPhones. Apple makes it very hard to leave their ecosystem because of iMessage, Facetime, and ALL of your digital purchases being tied to their ecosystem. So, what happens when all those teens grow up? Do we really think they will leave Apple ecosystem?

What cascades from that is a long term digital domination strategy, and when you have that only one digital store option, now you have a monopoly argument.

Not at all comparable. Windows had 90%+ of the PC market. Mac was 2-3%.

Apple has about half the phone OS market, with Android the other half.

Maybe in US (which is about 4% of world population). Worldwide, iOS is around 27% [1].

[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

Apple also blocks any web browser on their mobile devices except their web browser. Chrome, Firefox, and any other browser on IOS is using Safari under the hood.

Now why would Apple do this? Because they have hobbled Safari so that it does not have modern web APIs which would allow web developers to create web-apps that use APIs that are only allowed on App-store apps on IOS devices.

This forces developers to either make an app for the App-store, or don't have any IOS users.

This is one of many reasons Apple is being sued by the DOJ - because they won't allow any other browser engines on IOS, at least not in the US, the EU slapped them on the wrist and now it's allowed there.

Safari is the current worst web browser in terms of features and bugs, and Apple wants to keep it this way for no better reason but greed. They want to push people to make App-store apps, which they can extract 30% revenue from.

That is anti-competitive, and monopolistic behavior.

Yeah I hadn't thought about the browser being intentionally bad to push actual apps. That's been the reason for about half of the apps that I've made. The next is also somewhat anti-competitive, and its how bad the web services notifications are compared to the app-based notifications.

Their ecosystem is your phone. As long as you cannot install anything on your phone without going through their app store, it's a monopoly

If you define the scope narrow enough, everything is a monopoly.

- You don't need to have an iPhone

- You agree to the letter of the ToS when you click "I Agree" when you set up the iPhone,

- You also already agree to the spirit of the App Store when you buy it. After all, it's not some big secret

- You can get by with webapps for the most part anyway

- You can buy an Android, a flip phone, or pull a power move and have no phone

Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work differently is acting in bad faith IMO.

> Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work

Buying something used to mean something. If you're still beholden by company rules of a product you _bought_, you have been leasing/renting it.

If I buy a house from a builder, and it came with a requirement that you can only use Amazon Ring cameras, or builder-approved groceries - you'd be pretty pissed.

That's not a valid analogy. There isn't a "requirement" that you only use vanilla Apple software on an iPhone. More accurate would be that the house is set up for ring cameras and the builder doesn't support implementing any other type of camera system.

The house is set up for ring cameras and makes it either impossible or painful to use anything else. Not because of technical limitations, but in order to steer you away from competitors. Building something with it working in a particular way is fine, but building it in a particular way _in order_ for it not to work with competitors hurts everyone. I get the argument it's just because it makes their products work better, and call bullshit.

Then why not buy one of the multitude of houses that exist with alternative and open camera systems, that are also cheaper and more ubiquitous?

In my case it's because I'm using another of their products (my Mac) that is _not_ locked down like the iDevices. My laptop doesn't lock me into my phone, but buying a phone that they have locked out of my laptop's special Apple-only APIs puts me at a disadvantage.

No, I just wouldn't buy that house.

But you're right, maybe we should invent a new word for a purchase that is encumbered by legal agreements or subscriptions.

i see you’ve never purchased a condo or lived within an HOA community.

Furthermore, in the US (and some other countries), you don’t _actually_ own a house or it’s land. you own the rights to that house (a deed) as long as you continue paying your property taxes. see what happens when you stop paying uncle sam… it’s kind of like a subscription lol.

Civilization-as-a-service

> - You agree to the letter of the ToS when you click "I Agree" when you set up the iPhone,

I reject that argument.

For start ToS may have unenforceable claims (if someone puts that I agree to give all things I own to them into ToS it has zero effect).

Also, at this point I dispute that ToS clickery should be treated as agreeing to them. "I have read and agree with ToS" is a blatant lie in at least in the first half.

The problem is that app developers can't ignore iOS because the market is too big. Therefore Apple can do whatever they want and developer have to accept their condition.

As a developer, there is no choice. Apple should not be able to abuse their dominant position.

The problem with this is in the very definition of what it means to be an "app" developer. You say "app" and most people immediately understand you mean the iPhone or Android kind, with all that entails.

These companies have been dominating the landscape for decades now, most likely for longer than most app developers have been app developers. As a developer, there's definitely a choice: don't make an iPhone app; don't make an app at all. Make something else.

If you say you want access to the walled garden because that's where the people are, then consider that they are in there because they like the walls. From this point of view, you don't have a right to demand that the walled garden have free entrance.

> From this point of view, you don't have a right to demand that the walled garden have free entrance.

there are other points of view, including one that monopolies should be illegal

> If you say you want access to the walled garden because that's where the people are, then consider that they are in there because they like the walls.

I disagree there. Most people I know who have an iPhone didn't choose Apple because they like walls. There are many other reasons to choose Apple other than "I like getting screwed by TooBigTech".

> There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices.

Either this is bad faith, or you are uninformed.

> that's the cost of doing business.

All the question is there. Is that the cost of doing business, or is Apple abusing their dominant position?

That's not bad faith. Go build another phone if you don't like it. Go be one of those weird freaks with a Graphene phone that can't access carrier RCS because Google says no.

That has nothing to do with what I said. There are, most definitely, requirements to build an app for iOS devices.

I think it's really a perceived monopoly. Apple has created such a great thing that everyone wanted to get in on it but some people don't want to pay the Apple premium. Because most of their market is Apple App Store, they can make more money from the App Store, it's perceived as having a monopoly on mobile phone app stores.

> But that said, I don't understand how its a monopoly.

Because you've redefined the market.

Which part of this article quote don't you understand?

> but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means

If tomorrow, Tesla insisted that their cars will only accepted Tesla branded tires, would you be ok with it?

Sure it's their car and they can do whatever they want with it, but consumers are losing choices - which is what anti-monopoly rules are for. Say, Michelin or Pirelli tires are strictly better but Tesla doing this harms consumer choice and that's why it is bad.

Imagine if this were extended to Tesla branded chargers. Or Tesla branded paint. It's your damn car so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it.

If this happened tomorrow, you'd have every right to be outraged.

But if someone then bought a Tesla the day after, they'd have far less right to be outraged.

And if the new tires & paint were integral to fundamental value-add of the car (the analogy breaks down here), then there's just zero grounds for it.

A better analogy might be:

if tesla mandated tesla-only tires since day one (2012?), and they claimed it’s a perk/feature of the car, AND i bought the car anyway. Did i as a consumer not sign up for that?? There is more than 1 car manufacture after all.

None of the ios consumers are hoodwinked and apple offers free returns within 2 week in the US. The locked-down app store has been apples way since (almost) day one. Consumers voted with their wallets to not buy an android phone. I think that’s the difference?

IF android didn’t exist it wound be a different story, and it would also be a missing opportunity in the phone market.

They don't sell parts to shops, so effectively they have a lock on repairs.

> There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices

By this logic, there is also no requirement for one to eat and breathe, anyone can simply stop. The problem is the consequences.

Building an iOS app is requirement if you want to provide lots of services and compete on lots of market. The mobile phone OS landscape has become a duopoly, and society is free to impose certain obligations on those companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com