iOS6 wish: "Jailbreak" toggle

[tomhut]

mo·nop·o·ly   [muh-nop-uh-lee]
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

In this case, the service is “distribution of apps” and the particular market is “the iOS platform”.

The iOS platform isn't a market in this regard though, the entire smartphone market however is, of which Apple have a minority share worldwide. People have a great deal of choice when it comes to smartphones, a huge majority of which do not run iOS.

Also, abuse of a monopoly has usually comes from a company using their now dominant position in a market for unfair advantage (Such Microsoft did in the 90s by making OEMs bundle IE with computers over Netscape Navigator) This is far from what Apple have done with the App Store.

 

[5aga]

mo·nop·o·ly   [muh-nop-uh-lee]
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

In this case, the service is “distribution of apps” and the particular market is “the iOS platform”.


I don’t know anything about Windows phones, so I cannot comment on the matter.


Not quite. It’s more like a car maker that does everything it can to prevent independent mechanics from replacing any part of the engine, and for other modifications like replacing the radio or changing the type of headlight, mechanics are required to pay 30% of their fee to the car maker.


You are making a straw man argument, which is a logical fallacy. You are talking as if my claim had to do with a monopoly on phones or other physical devices. It does not. What I claim is that Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of software for the iOS platform. It is a monopoly on a service.


This straw man is irrelevant. I am factually accurate in stating that developers of iOS apps are essentially forced into using Apple’s distribution system, the App Store. That is the monopoly.


Again, it is not a monopoly on physical hardware. It is a monopoly on the distribution of software for a specific platform. A developer of iOS software does not have other reasonable options for distribution. The only significant alternative to the monopolistic App Store is the Cydia store, and Apple continues to put great effort into making Cydia inaccessible.

you have a skewed vision of Apple's ecosystem.

Firstly, their App store is not a commodity, it is a service. They own, publish and maintain their ecosystem, so they have every right to create the rules. Not only do developers agree to these terms but so does the user.

your claim of monopoly is ridiculous and sounds like a desperate attempt to criticize them. It really is simple, if you don't like their App Store model, don't use it. Go buy and Android or WinMo device.

You have other options.

 

[Qaanol]

The iOS platform isn't a market in this regard though

I disagree. Apps are bought and sold for the iOS platform, and therefore the iOS platform constitutes a market for apps.

the entire smartphone market however is

The smartphone market is a different entity. It is a market for hardware devices and system software. I am not talking about those things. That market is irrelevant to the present discussion.

of which Apple have a minority share worldwide. People have a great deal of choice when it comes to smartphones, a huge majority of which do not run iOS.

All true, and all irrelevant. I am talking about the market for iOS apps, which is controlled by Apple.

Also, abuse of a monopoly has usually comes from a company using their now dominant position in a market for unfair advantage (Such Microsoft did in the 90s by making OEMs bundle IE with computers over Netscape Navigator) This is far from what Apple have done with the App Store.

I agree that is what “abuse” of a monopoly entails, and I posit that is exactly what Apple has done. The unfair advantage in question is realized by exclusive control over the distribution of Apps.

The dominant position Apple occupies has enabled Apple to unilaterally decide which apps can and cannot be distributed for the iOS platform. Because app developers have no other channels for distribution on iOS, Apple is able to demand a 30% cut of all sales on the iOS platform, and app developers have no other options nor any recourse.

Imagine if Microsoft had written Windows in such a way that non-IE web browsers—or any other software Microsoft did not like—could not even be installed.

Firstly, their App store is not a commodity, it is a service.

That is what I said. Notice the word “or” in “commodity or service”. A monopoly can be either one.

They own, publish and maintain their ecosystem,

True.

so they have every right to create the rules.

False.

Remember when AT&T owned, operated, and maintained its own telephone ecosystem, and insisted that only AT&T telephones could be plugged into AT&T phone lines? That was a monopoly, and it was split up by the courts.

Remember when Standard Oil owned, distributed, and maintained its own oil and kerosene ecosystem, and prevented other companies from competing? That was a monopoly, and it was split up by the courts.

Having the ability to do something does not a priori imply having the right to do that thing. In the situation of a company exerting monopoly powers over a market to the exclusion of rival firms, legal doctrine and common sense fall squarely on the side of, “That is wrong, anti-competitive, and should be stopped.”

Not only do developers agree to these terms but so does the user.

Developers of iOS apps are faced with an untenable Hobson’s choice. The options are “Agree to Apple’s conditions” or “Stop selling iOS apps”, and that is no choice at all. There is no ability for app developers to freely compete, because Apple, to the best of its ability, prevents them from distributing apps outside its own App Store.

your claim of monopoly is ridiculous and sounds like a desperate attempt to criticize them. It really is simple, if you don't like their App Store model, don't use it. Go buy and Android or WinMo device.

You continue to make a fallacious straw man argument. You are arguing against a position that no one has taken in this thread, namely “Apple has a monopoly on smartphones”, which is not what I claim. Of course consumers have other smartphone options, Apple does not have a monopoly there.

What Apple does have a monopoly on, as can be seen upon either cursory or in-depth inspection, is the distribution of apps for the iOS platform. It is plain that developers of iOS apps do not have other options for competing in that market.

When faced with a monopoly, your response of “If you don’t like their business model, stop using their products” is entirely unreasonable. That approach completely ignores the reasons that monopolies are undesirable in the first place. Indeed, your statements can easily be paraphrased to match other companies:

“If you don’t like AT&T’s model, stop using a telephone. Go send a telegraph.”
“If you don’t like Standard Oil’s model, stop using gasoline. Go buy a horse.”

You have other options.

App developers who want to compete in the iOS market do not.

 

[5aga]

You continue to make a fallacious straw man argument. You are arguing against a position that no one has taken in this thread, namely “Apple has a monopoly on smartphones”, which is not what I claim. Of course consumers have other smartphone options, Apple does not have a monopoly there.

What Apple does have a monopoly on, as can be seen upon either cursory or in-depth inspection, is the distribution of apps for the iOS platform. It is plain that developers of iOS apps do not have other options for competing in that market.

When faced with a monopoly, your response of “If you don’t like their business model, stop using their products” is entirely unreasonable. That approach completely ignores the reasons that monopolies are undesirable in the first place. Indeed, your statements can easily be paraphrased to match other companies:

“If you don’t like AT&T’s model, stop using a telephone. Go send a telegraph.”
“If you don’t like Standard Oil’s model, stop using gasoline. Go buy a horse.”

You are not making any sense. Firstly you accuse me of using an invalid term for "monopoly", then use abstract metaphors, based off of the general term of "monopoly" that you originally weren't referencing, all to try to invalidate my point.

It's almost like you're arguing for sake of doing so.

Again, it's very simple: if you disagree with Apple's policies, you can use a different smartphone, like Android etc.

The same goes for devs, they can use Android Market etc for distributing their apps. Some devs sell apps in more than one store.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market. As I stated earlier there are other companies with different app store models. You are free to choose which you like. You're not suddenly out of options if you don't use an iPhone.

 

[BaldiMac]

I disagree. Apps are bought and sold for the iOS platform, and therefore the iOS platform constitutes a market for apps.


The smartphone market is a different entity. It is a market for hardware devices and system software. I am not talking about those things. That market is irrelevant to the present discussion.


All true, and all irrelevant. I am talking about the market for iOS apps, which is controlled by Apple.


I agree that is what “abuse” of a monopoly entails, and I posit that is exactly what Apple has done. The unfair advantage in question is realized by exclusive control over the distribution of Apps.

The dominant position Apple occupies has enabled Apple to unilaterally decide which apps can and cannot be distributed for the iOS platform. Because app developers have no other channels for distribution on iOS, Apple is able to demand a 30% cut of all sales on the iOS platform, and app developers have no other options nor any recourse.

Imagine if Microsoft had written Windows in such a way that non-IE web browsers—or any other software Microsoft did not like—could not even be installed.


That is what I said. Notice the word “or” in “commodity or service”. A monopoly can be either one.


True.


False.

Remember when AT&T owned, operated, and maintained its own telephone ecosystem, and insisted that only AT&T telephones could be plugged into AT&T phone lines? That was a monopoly, and it was split up by the courts.

Remember when Standard Oil owned, distributed, and maintained its own oil and kerosene ecosystem, and prevented other companies from competing? That was a monopoly, and it was split up by the courts.

Having the ability to do something does not a priori imply having the right to do that thing. In the situation of a company exerting monopoly powers over a market to the exclusion of rival firms, legal doctrine and common sense fall squarely on the side of, “That is wrong, anti-competitive, and should be stopped.”


Developers of iOS apps are faced with an untenable Hobson’s choice. The options are “Agree to Apple’s conditions” or “Stop selling iOS apps”, and that is no choice at all. There is no ability for app developers to freely compete, because Apple, to the best of its ability, prevents them from distributing apps outside its own App Store.


You continue to make a fallacious straw man argument. You are arguing against a position that no one has taken in this thread, namely “Apple has a monopoly on smartphones”, which is not what I claim. Of course consumers have other smartphone options, Apple does not have a monopoly there.

What Apple does have a monopoly on, as can be seen upon either cursory or in-depth inspection, is the distribution of apps for the iOS platform. It is plain that developers of iOS apps do not have other options for competing in that market.

When faced with a monopoly, your response of “If you don’t like their business model, stop using their products” is entirely unreasonable. That approach completely ignores the reasons that monopolies are undesirable in the first place. Indeed, your statements can easily be paraphrased to match other companies:

“If you don’t like AT&T’s model, stop using a telephone. Go send a telegraph.”
“If you don’t like Standard Oil’s model, stop using gasoline. Go buy a horse.”


App developers who want to compete in the iOS market do not.

You are jumping back and forth between the dictionary definition of a monopoly and the legal definition of a monopoly and the associated antitrust restrictions.

If you are using "abuse of a monopoly" to mean that they are doing things that you don't like, than that's your opinion. But if you are using it to mean that they are doing something illegal, than you have a lot higher burden on proof than you have presented here.

There is nothing wrong with being the exclusive provider to a platform that you own. There are thousands of examples that don't involve Apple. xBox apps all go through Microsoft. Vendors at Disney World all go through Disney. Just because Apple's competitors sell an open platform, does not mean Apple has to.

Here is a good place to start if you are interested in antitrust law.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm

 

[swordfish5736]

Remember when AT&T owned, operated, and maintained its own telephone ecosystem, and insisted that only AT&T telephones could be plugged into AT&T phone lines? That was a monopoly, and it was split up by the courts.

Remember when Standard Oil owned, distributed, and maintained its own oil and kerosene ecosystem, and prevented other companies from competing? That was a monopoly, and it was split up by the courts.

lol so you want to compare apple controlling what software gets on its cellphones which you are not required to purchase and have many other to choose from. To standard oil shutting down little companies by undercutting them and then pretty much controlling all of the oil refinement and distribution in the US. Meaning you couldn't buy from somebody else for oil which was something everybody needed. How is this similar to a closed marketplace on a device which you don't have to purchase? You don't have to own an iPhone to use a cell phone network.

“If you don’t like AT&T’s model, stop using a telephone. Go send a telegraph.”
“If you don’t like Standard Oil’s model, stop using gasoline. Go buy a horse.”

well wasn't it decided in the early 1900's that everyone should have telephones
and its a new standard for means of communication. Maybe if apple had snatched up that 700mhz spectrum awhile back, created a national network and the iPhone and it became a new means for communication that was in some way far superior to a standard cell phone. That would be a monopoly of a market.

who do you have for cell service out of curiosity?

 

[Qaanol]

You are not making any sense. Firstly you accuse me of using an invalid term for "monopoly",

Source? Please provide a link and quote showing where I “accuse you of using an invalid term for ‘monopoly’.” (Hint: that never happened. You just made it up.)

then use abstract metaphors

Source? Please provide a link and quote showing where I used an “abstract metaphor”. (Hint: I didn’t. You just made that up.)

based off of the general term of "monopoly" that you originally weren't referencing

Source? My very first post in this thread began with the sentence “Apple is currently abusing its monopoly position.” I have been using “the general term of ‘monopoly’” from the outset. When someone asked what definition of “monopoly” I was using, I provided a link to and quote of a major dictionary definition.

all to try to invalidate my point.

So far you have made three posts in this thread, all arguing a single point: that Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones, because consumers have other options such as Android. I agree with you on that point. Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones. We all agree with that. The one point you have made in this thread is correct.

It's almost like you're arguing for sake of doing so.

I am arguing for two positions. First, the factually accurate point that Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of apps for the iOS platform. And second, that by any reasonable definition of “ownership”, the owner of a device—and no one else—must have final say in which programs he or she trusts to run on that device.

Again, it's very simple: if you disagree with Apple's policies, you can use a different smartphone, like Android etc.

I agree. If I didn’t like the iPhone, I would not have bought one. I do like the iPhone. What I do not like is how Apple abuses its monopoly position as sole proprietor of software distribution for the iOS platform.

Those are two distinct issues. One of them refers to consumer choice in a free market, namely my ability to purchase the phone I want. The other of them refers to a single company exerting near-complete control over what commodities can be sold in a certain marketplace, namely Apple preventing users from installing apps that come from anywhere other than the App Store.

The same goes for devs, they can use Android Market etc for distributing their apps. Some devs sell apps in more than one store.

What you say here is analogous to, “Yes, De Beers has a monopoly on worldwide diamond mining and distribution, but that’s okay. People who want to mine diamonds can go mine emeralds, rubies, and sapphires instead.”

In other words, you are ignoring the problem and saying, “Eh, it’s not so bad.”

Specifically, you are claiming, “Yes, Apple has complete control over the distribution of apps for the iOS platform, but I’m okay with that.”

If that is your position, fine, you can be okay with that. I am not okay with that. And government anti-trust regulators, if they look at the letter and spirit of existing laws and precedents, should not be okay with that.

When one company (Apple) uses its existing market dominance (control of what programs iDevices can run) to prevent competitors from entering the marketplace (by thwarting attempts to distribute apps outside the App Store), that is a monopoly (on the service of distributing apps) and should be corrected.

I am arguing in favor of the free market, a level playing field, fair competition, and the rights of property owners to use their devices as they see fit.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market. As I stated earlier there are other companies with different app store models. You are free to choose which you like. You're not suddenly out of options if you don't use an iPhone.

All true, and all missing the point. I completely agree that the iPhone is not a monopoly in the smartphone market. I agree the smartphone market is highly competitive.

What is not competitive, what is a monopoly, is how Apple prevents iPhones from running software their owners want, in order to force developers to use its own App Store, thereby funneling massive profits to Apple.

Look at it this way: if there were a competing store for iOS apps that only charged a 10% commission, it is only rational to assume that the vast majority of app developers would sell their apps through that store. The operator of such a competing app store would rake in massive profits from the billons of apps being sold, all without having done anything other than provide a place for developers to sell their apps, and their only costs would be keeping a bunch of servers running.

In a free market, anyone who wanted to set up such a competing app store would be able to. Then the free market would naturally settle on the true value of per-app distribution, which might be something like 1% commission.

There are no competing iOS app stores, because Apple does not allow there to be. Apple directly and intentionally stifles competition in the market of distributing iOS apps. That is the abuse of monopoly power I reference.

 

[bwrairen]

So would you consider this a monopoly if the market dominance was not existing? Because they had no market dominance five years ago. Apple built their dominance in the cell phone industry by providing this level of protection and security in their app store. If all apps are approved and tested by Apple, then they can be sure that the user experience will not be negatively affected. You must remember that the overwhelming majority of iPhone users are not tech savvy people. They do not want the responsibility of deciding if a source for an app can be trusted or not. They want to go to a central location and download an app they know is safe. Having an app store that is protected is a major reason why the iPhone is at the top of the market today.

 

[moonman239]

Okay, will you all please stop arguing? You all have made your opinions known.

On-topic:
As a developer myself, I would love to not have to pay $99/year so that I can distribute apps on non-hacked devices.

 

[Aimson]

So basically what your saying, is the apps I can get for my Xbox and PS3 and Wii all from their respective markets, they are respectively monopolising their own market? lol.. your principles are alllll wrong!

 

[MattInOz]

Okay, will you all please stop arguing? You all have made your opinions known.

On-topic:
As a developer myself, I would love to not have to pay $99/year so that I can distribute apps on non-hacked devices.

Well yeah,...
but that $99/year fee (+30% of sales revenue) is still a better value deal than previous Developer Accounts.Well at least in the low end entry point and much better exposure for product. Higher end developers seem to be pretty noisy about wanting to pay more for better access.

So the question is what more would you be willing to lose in return for the lower price?

So far your suggesting Apple give up all its value in the deal and your not offering anything in return.

 

[irDigital0l]

No.

 

[gotluck]

Then your warranty would toggle on and off.

baha a jailbreak does not void your warranty. it is entirely reversible without trace with a simple restore from itunes.

i have had apple products replaced under warranty that were previously jailbroken.

 

[Small White Car]

I agree that is what “abuse” of a monopoly entails, and I posit that is exactly what Apple has done. The unfair advantage in question is realized by exclusive control over the distribution of Apps.

When some people make up imaginary worlds with unique legal and governmental systems they do things like make it into aTV show (Star Trek), or a video game (World of Warcraft), or a book (Lord of the Rings).

Perhaps you should focus your attention on something like that rather than trying to pretend that your made-up legal system actually exists in the real world.

Don't waste your creativity, is all I'm saying.

 

[Hick4Ever]

The other of them refers to a single company exerting near-complete control over what commodities can be sold in a certain marketplace, namely Apple preventing users from installing apps that come from anywhere other than the App Store.

I'm sorry, that sentence just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. All "marketplaces" do this. Wal-Mart, Target, etc. don't allow others to input what should be sold at their stores, why should Apple?

 

[Jimmy B]

No.

Please explain. Not a oneword post!

 

[irDigital0l]

Please explain. Not a oneword post!

...

No, its not going to happen.

 

[twigman08]

Ok, I haven't read every post on this thread, but I'm saying this. It is not a monopoly. Just because Apple must approve the apps that go on the App store does not make it a Monopoly. If it were a monopoly then think about Consoles.

To develop for the 360 or the PS3 you must be a registered developer with Microsoft or Sony. Not just anyone can be a developer either. I'm a programmer but I can't just go up to Microsoft and say "Hey I'm going to make a 360 game, give me a development kit." It won't happen. Microsoft controls also what games can be developed for the XBox Live Arcade. They also have rules that everyone must follow for DLC and other things. The user can only play games that Microsoft said were ok to be on the System. Do you know why it is not a Monopoly? Because users have other choices at consoles they can buy.

 

[rorschach]

Don't be so stupid. If it was accesible in the software it will then be covered by the warranty.

That being said, it would never happen.

Not necessarily. My MacBook Pro user manual has instructions for replacing the hard drive, but it's not covered under warranty.

 

[twigman08]

Not necessarily. My MacBook Pro user manual has instructions for replacing the hard drive, but it's not covered under warranty.

Plus all they had to do if they ever did this (seriously be realistic people it won't happen) and you toggled the switch on is pop up a message saying something like "Turning Jailbreak mode on will void your warranty. Are you sure you want to continue?"