Apple 'Playing Hard-Ball' in Appeal Against UK's Investigation Into Platform Restrictions

[WWPD]

I hope the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)™ can look into Coca Cola and Pepsi's stranglehold over the cola market next.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I hope the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)™ can look into Coca Cola and Pepsi's stranglehold over the cola market next.

There's just a small difference: everyone can make a cola soda. It's much less complex to replicate than a digital device (obviously).

And if Coca Cola went away tomorrow, it wouldn't cause such a big disruption as Apple or Microsoft.

 

[jlc1978]

A monopoly IS inherently bad. We accept them because sometimes we see there are no immediate alternatives. But the main issue is: what happens when the company holding the monopoly turns bad?

And that is what I said - merely being a monopoly isn't bad, its the actions of the monopolist if they hurt consumers that is bad.

Here is an example not of a monopoly, but an oligopoly: insulin shots in the US. Because only a few companies produce it and the market is completely unregulated, they set the prices to whatever they see fit. This makes the prices skyrocket in comparison to other developed countries.

And if you are diabetic, you WILL BUY IT, because you have no other choice. It's that or death.

Once again it is the actions that need addressing, not the existence of an oligopoly.

 

[Joe Dohn]

And that is what I said - merely being a monopoly isn't bad, its the actions of the monopolist if they hurt consumers that is bad.

This is similar to the "guns don't kill people" argument, or "cigarettes don't kill people; it's the act of smoking."

You're asking for a monopoly, which holds all the power, to not use it and stay well-behaved without government intervention.

It won't happen; if people hold unbalanced power, they WILL use it to their advantage.
Furthermore, monopolies make it more difficult for smaller companies to compete. That's many people that will not be employed to the advantage of a few.

Also allowing a monopoly to exist relies on the argument that they are morally superior, and know better to take wise decisions for you than the customer.

Do the last two points make sense to you? They don't to me.

 

[robbietop]

More government oversight does not make products better, but is merely a hidden tax on a company masquerading as public interest.

Apple will eventually comply, but in a malicious manner and over time the new regulatory powers will have been nullified and Apple will go back to doing what it has for past 40 years: whatever it pleases.

 

[VulchR]

No, not typically. For the top two competitors in a market to be considered to a duopoly, they (together) generally have to control a significant portion of that market. If, for example, there are 20 players in a market and the top two have something like 8% and 6% (14% combined) of the market, they wouldn't likely be considered a duopoly. However, if the top two in the field had something like 45% and 35% (80% combined) then they would likely be considered a duopoly.

Surely anticompetitive practices are based on collusion if there is more than one company involved, not just market share, but I get your point.

 

[macsimcon]

Don't create a monopoly and you will be fine as long as they insist on that. People defending Apple by saying "yOu CaN jUsT uSe AnDrOiD" does not understand that a monopoly is not about having other options.
It is about a player eating into the free market by being so big (either by choice or not). It, therefore, has to take on a more considerable responsibility that goes outside regular business expectations/requirements.

Just look at Google. When your company name becomes a verb for "Searching online", you are getting to that point. Apple is getting there too.

But Apple didn’t cheat to get here (not that it matters now, but Google did cheat: their mobile phone under development looked completely different, and then the iPhone came out and Google copied that design).

There were many other competitors in mobile, including Palm, Danger, RIMM, Sony, and Microsoft. They couldn’t compete with Apple and Google, and their products eventually failed because consumers chose not to buy them. This is exactly how competitive markets are supposed to function. That’s not Apple’s or Google’s fault.

 

[markfc]

I really wish the UK government would put as much effort into sorting out the UK energy companies. They are currently ******* everyone and not just Apple users.

 

[Wildkraut]

But Apple didn’t cheat to get here (not that it matters now, but Google did cheat: their mobile phone under development looked completely different, and then the iPhone came out and Google copied that design).

There were many other competitors in mobile, including Palm, Danger, RIMM, Sony, and Microsoft. They couldn’t compete with Apple and Google, and their products eventually failed because consumers chose not to buy them. This is exactly how competitive markets are supposed to function. That’s not Apple’s or Google’s fault.

Well, yes I agree to "This is exactly how competitive markets are supposed to function".
The mobile market was open and competitive without any customer lock-ins, despite having heavy weight mobile phone companies leading it, that's why Apple and Google managed to enter the market, leech it and transform the mobile market to an anti-competitive one.

Now it's sadly not competitive anymore, simply as that.
Apple and Google destroyed an open and competitive mobile market, which now has to be fixed by law.

"Embrace, extend, and extinguish" is now Apples motto.

 

[strongy]

I really wish the UK government would put as much effort into sorting out the UK energy companies. They are currently ******* everyone and not just Apple users.

this would be a much more useful use of their time

 

[jlc1978]

You're asking for a monopoly, which holds all the power, to not use it and stay well-behaved without government intervention.

No, I'm saying that a monopoly (especially the (incorrect) version som mR users claim is some 50% or so market share or complete control of 1 platform even if others exist) is not per se bad; and if it is gov't intervention is appropriate.

It won't happen; if people hold unbalanced power, they WILL use it to their advantage.

That's just it - Apple doesn't hold unbalanced power in mobile.

Furthermore, monopolies make it more difficult for smaller companies to compete. That's many people that will not be employed to the advantage of a few.

It would be very inefficient for many smaller companies to exists than a few larger ones; rising costs to consumers which is a bad outcome. Would consumers be better off if smartphones cost $2000? Developers if they had to code for a dozen different OS?

Apple and Google have established 2 standards for OS that pretty much dominate teh market. As a result, there are efficiency software scale we all benefit from.

Also allowing a monopoly to exist relies on the argument that they are morally superior, and know better to take wise decisions for you than the customer.

There is no moral judgement in that.

Size and success do not a monopoly make; and are alone not a reason for intervention.

The proof will be the result of the UK and EU's actions - does that lower costs for the consumer overall? If the answer is no, then the actions are a failure. If they go up, it was a mistake.

 

[5232152]

But Apple didn’t cheat to get here (not that it matters now, but Google did cheat: their mobile phone under development looked completely different, and then the iPhone came out and Google copied that design).

There were many other competitors in mobile, including Palm, Danger, RIMM, Sony, and Microsoft. They couldn’t compete with Apple and Google, and their products eventually failed because consumers chose not to buy them. This is exactly how competitive markets are supposed to function. That’s not Apple’s or Google’s fault.

It’s not their fault at all. But I suggest it becomes their responsibility. I frankly don’t see how you became a monopoly is relevant when the end result is the same; Your choices has rippling effects through your domain and for that reason your decisions are highly monitored by the watchdog of society. Common good over company greed. Always.

 

[E.Lizardo]

In consoles most generations there is a duopoly. No one busted up their app stores.

if you want your phone being a buggy computer go Android. If you want it to be a console go apple (until they break it).

I struggle with this too. Hopefully someone can help me understand how game console makers have restrictions much like Apple's, yet it's almost never mentioned. I assume there is an important difference but I haven't figured out what it is. And I'm serious in inviting a clear explanation from anyone.

 

[Atomic1977]

Hmm I think all big companies are monopolies. Just look at all the things microsoft went through.  is no different.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I struggle with this too. Hopefully someone can help me understand how game console makers have restrictions much like Apple's, yet it's almost never mentioned. I assume there is an important difference but I haven't figured out what it is. And I'm serious in inviting a clear explanation from anyone.

Even though consoles are closed platforms, they don't claim to be general-purpose machines like computers do. And they don't sell as nearly as much.

But as appliances get more and more powerful, I could definitely see one arguing that users should have the right to use the XBOX S or the Playstation 5 as computers – and compellingly so, because they ARE powerful enough.

 

[d686546s]

I struggle with this too. Hopefully someone can help me understand how game console makers have restrictions much like Apple's, yet it's almost never mentioned. I assume there is an important difference but I haven't figured out what it is. And I'm serious in inviting a clear explanation from anyone.

I think on some level there's an argument to be made, but I don't think both platforms are really comparable in terms of use case and spread.

First, based on a quick search this morning, in 2020 alone Apple sold more iPhones than Microsoft and Sony had sold Xboxes and PlayStations over their entire lifespans up to that point. The install base is small in comparison and therefore the broader impact limited, although it of course sucks if you wanted to operate a store for digital games.

Second, while consoles have tried to become entertainment centres, I'm not sure how successful they've been. I don't have any figures but it feels like consoles remain mostly restricted to doing one thing and one thing alone. Microsoft or Sony aren't really in a position to gatekeep markets for such a wide range of things as Apple or Google are. Apple has repeatedly and successfully used its control over hardware and software to branch out into other markets, think Apple Pay for example, in a way that Microsoft and Sony really cannot or have not with their consoles. There's therefore much less of a reason to intervene.

 

[Lihp8270]

It's their dream scenario. In their view, if there is a used market, you are preventing their users to buy a fresh product. THIS is the real reason cellphones are rendered obsolete – so that companies will always be able to sell a shiny new phone.

Imagine if you were forced to sell your fridge every five years, or your car every five years. There would be all sorts of cries on how companies have a draconian, illegal policy – rightfully so. But with cellphones, we have just normalized we NEED new phones very 1-3 years.

Hint: we don't. Especially for making calls and texting, there's nothing that your old iPhone 5 can't do that your iPhone 14 can. The extra power is nice and convenient, but companies deny us from using it in its fullest potential – so, what's the point of having it at all?

And before you come arguing that the phone market couldn't work that way, allowing old phones to be used, it absolutely can. Before smartphones, dumb cell phones could be ages old and still do the basics. They probably still can today. It was only after smartphones that companies tried to normalize that you NEED to replace your phone.

It’s a bit much like a conspiracy theory.

“Let’s make stuff fail so they have to buy more”

The fact is that devices and products are made to budgets and constraints often dictated by the market.

If consumers are replacing phones every 2 years, why add the cost of designing and maintaining a device for 20 years?

If the market wanted repairable devices, etc. They'd buy them. But the fact is that despite there being alternatives on the market. They’d rather have an iPhone than something less fashionable but repairable.

 

[boyarka]

If Apple or Google closed their app stores for a day, what would happen?
Users might rise up and vote the overly-protective governments out...

Firstly they won't - because of $$$
Secondly - Huawei and Samsung and all the rest will get an ear-to-ear Pinocchio smile.
As for "voting them out" yeah right after pigs learn how to fly - EU is plenty happy having citizens that have rights instead of sucking up to big tech. Only americans without a decent govt and/or limited imagination think that having zero rights and having companies dictate people is something "good".

 

[boyarka]

Except that the "lawmakers" are the corporations. Their lobbyists write the laws and tell the congressmen they paid for to pass them. We are lucky to have some consumer protection laws, but corporations will always fight for them to have no real teeth (or just no enforcement resources).

Except that what you just said makes zero sense. USB-Micro and USB-C adoption as phone charger standards, along with warranty/reclamation coverage along with ever-stricter anti-monopoly laws is the exact opposite of what big companies want.
The next thing you'll say is that socialized cross-eu healthcare, free roaming and minimum wage is also a product of big corporations' lobbying, right?

 

[doobydoooby]

I hope the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)™ can look into Coca Cola and Pepsi's stranglehold over the cola market next.

Its not the same: coca-cola and Pepsi are almost perfect substitutes for each other, and the cost to switch from one to the other is tiny. That's not the case with apple: once you are embedded within their system, especially after a few years of investment, the costs to switch to an alternative (and basically there's only android) are very high, and so the monopolistic/oligopolistic provider has wiggle room to get away with things that it wouldn't if switching was cost-free. I'm not saying its all bad, we all benefit from the convenience and safety of the apple ecosystem, but we end up trapped inside it and that gives apple the freedom to start taking liberties that it wouldn't if the market were truly competitive. That's why regulators get involved: because the little guy can no longer stand up for himself. And yeah, there are other protectionist reasons why a government might intervene, but the main one is market abuse.

 

[BaldiMac]

Its not the same: coca-cola and Pepsi are almost perfect substitutes for each other, and the cost to switch from one to the other is tiny. That's not the case with apple: once you are embedded within their system, especially after a few years of investment, the costs to switch to an alternative (and basically there's only android) are very high, and so the monopolistic/oligopolistic provider has wiggle room to get away with things that it wouldn't if switching was cost-free. I'm not saying its all bad, we all benefit from the convenience and safety of the apple ecosystem, but we end up trapped inside it and that gives apple the freedom to start taking liberties that it wouldn't if the market were truly competitive. That's why regulators get involved: because the little guy can no longer stand up for himself. And yeah, there are other protectionist reasons why a government might intervene, but the main one is market abuse.

Are the costs high to switch for most people? I'd maybe have to pay for a few apps and move my data from iCloud. It would probably cost me less to switch to Android than buying my next iPhone.

 

[mrochester]

Its not the same: coca-cola and Pepsi are almost perfect substitutes for each other, and the cost to switch from one to the other is tiny. That's not the case with apple: once you are embedded within their system, especially after a few years of investment, the costs to switch to an alternative (and basically there's only android) are very high, and so the monopolistic/oligopolistic provider has wiggle room to get away with things that it wouldn't if switching was cost-free. I'm not saying its all bad, we all benefit from the convenience and safety of the apple ecosystem, but we end up trapped inside it and that gives apple the freedom to start taking liberties that it wouldn't if the market were truly competitive. That's why regulators get involved: because the little guy can no longer stand up for himself. And yeah, there are other protectionist reasons why a government might intervene, but the main one is market abuse.

Is that really true? The only cost I can think of is having to purchase the same apps again on a different platform but that'll always be the case when switching platforms. App developers could get around this by offering their apps for free and selling access to the service/app via means of a subscription, and that way you as a consumer can move your apps over without cost. But the onus is on app developers to offer that service.

 

[wbeasley]

There's just a small difference: everyone can make a cola soda. It's much less complex to replicate than a digital device (obviously).

And if Coca Cola went away tomorrow, it wouldn't cause such a big disruption as Apple or Microsoft.

If Coke or Pepsi went away there would be huge changes - they own a lot more than the brand name. Have fingers in many pies and the distribution deals and transport sectors would be shaken up. These guys always knew a time was coming when sugary drinks werent going to cut it anymore. They diversified and leveraged the skills they learnt along the way.

 

[wbeasley]

I already own all the cartridges I want to play. I've backed up the ROM images from the cartridges myself.

Though if Nintendo did offer those same games for sale on the App Store I probably would buy them. I've already bought most of these games multiple times over the years.

The games I want to play are Sim City for the SNES, Mario All Stars, Chrono Trigger (which is on the App Store and I have already bought, and I own it on PC/DS/SNES/PSX). The SNES version of Harvest Moon.

Lucky you to own the games you want.

Not eveyone has that ability and kids today know they can just download old ROMs...
They dont like buying things. Not hold in your hand items. All subscriptions. Probably why vinyl had a resurgence - the joy of holding physical product you own rather than the sound quality which isnt always great on lofi record players...

 

[Joe Dohn]

If Coke or Pepsi went away there would be huge changes - they own a lot more than the brand name. Have fingers in many pies and the distribution deals and transport sectors would be shaken up. These guys always knew a time was coming when sugary drinks werent going to cut it anymore. They diversified and leveraged the skills they learnt along the way.

When we were discussing, we were only considering their flagship product (as we're comparing Coke and Pepsi).

The industry would be shaken up at first, but everything they own would probably be absorbed by other industries. Chances are their Coke soda would be bought too.

But assuming it wouldn't, it's very easy to make their flagship product even at home. Their formula is a secret, but large companies can get very close enough without knowing it. Contrast that to CPUs. They're so hard to make that you don't see every country having their own CPU.