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

[Joe Dohn]

We are getting off track and into politics, which the moderators don’t like.

I understand that people don't want to get too deep into politics to prevent arguments, but there should be some leeway on this rule, as it's impossible to talk about economics without talking about politics.

The reason is that how we structure some economic policies is deeply tied into political beliefs – and sometimes, even religious beliefs disguised as political beliefs.

For example, if you believe companies are inherently good and governments inherently corrupt, you are going to structure your whole economy around that – which the US does, by the way.

I particularly think that belief is incredibly stupid. Both entities are run by people, so what makes people think governments will not have your interests at heart, but companies will? Companies care about their own profits, first and foremost. They are not a magical entity that know what is best for you, and there should be a balance of power.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Take for instance the current gaming licensing model around digital assets. It's well known that a property is only yours when you are free to trade it. In the current scheme one can buy a licence but one cannot trade it. Meaning, we actually own next to nothing.

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.

 

[MacProFCP]

I understand that people don't want to get too deep into politics to prevent arguments, but there should be some leeway on this rule, as it's impossible to talk about economics without talking about politics.

The reason is that how we structure some economic policies is deeply tied into political beliefs – and sometimes, even religious beliefs disguised as political beliefs.

For example, if you believe companies are inherently good and governments inherently corrupt, you are going to structure your whole economy around that – which the US does, by the way.

I particularly think that belief is incredibly stupid. Both entities are run by people, so what makes people think governments will not have your interests at heart, but companies will? Companies care about their own profits, first and foremost. They are not a magical entity that know what is best for you, and there should be a balance of power.

There isn’t much wiggle room as the moderators want to keep political conversation in forums that restrict posts.

Both governments and companies are run by people. But only government can restrict your rights if they don’t like what’s going on. Government wields the gun. On the other hand small businesses are what make up the vast majority of the US economy and, as such, feel a tremendous obligation to better their communities. I think this is about as far as can take this without having this entire conversation deleted.

The beginnings of all this was based on my observation that the EU is most likely to be the first governmental body to force Apple’s hand and I don’t think anyone here has disagreed with that observation; we’ve only discussed whether this overreach in restricting and instructing business in their business is a good thing or not.

 

[jlc1978]

If apple weren't engaging in monopolistic behaviour, governments wouldn't see the need to rein them in. That this is being confirmed in many different jurisdictions speaks volumes.

Governments take on corporations for a variety of reasons, one being to protect companies in their country or to give them a favorable market position.

A monopoly is not per se bad; it is the abuse of a dominant position that is problematic, i.e. is the monopolist using its position to keep prices artificially high or drive out competitors?

As fro prices, the Mac marketplace provides a good comparison for what the iOS one would look like if open. In the Mac market, companies charge the same price for software, in general, on the App Store and their website. Apple lets developers set a price and takes a cut on the App Store. There is no indication they would lower prices if the App Store reduced its fee.

Nor does Apple reduce prices to drive out competitors. iPhones certainly are not sold at a loss to gain market share, Music isn't free, etc.

Success is not a reason to sanction a company. There are some practices that probably should be changed, but the notion that Apple is a monopoly that needs to be slammed, is incorrect, IMHO.

 

[Joe Dohn]

There isn’t much wiggle room as the moderators want to keep political conversation in forums that restrict posts.

Both governments and companies are run by people. But only government can restrict your rights if they don’t like what’s going on. Government wields the gun. On the other hand small businesses are what make up the vast majority of the US economy and, as such, feel a tremendous obligation to better their communities. I think this is about as far as can take this without having this entire conversation deleted.

In Law, that's a discussion of power de facto vs power de jure.

In theory, companies don't hold powers over citizens; the state does ("legal" power, or de jure); in practice, however, large organizations DO hold power when they can interfere with the state or become a monopoly.

Here's an example: suppose that all companies in the country in your sector require you to have a LinkedIn profile. However, LinkedIn unfairly and unilaterally devices it doesn't want you to have an account there, so it bans you. In this case, LinkedIn has power in practice (although indirectly) over you and your sector.

The list goes on and on. Suppose that, instead, credit companies where you live require you to have a Google Wallet for payment processing; they accept nothing else. However, one day, Google inexplicably deletes your account.

In theory, it's within Google's right to delete your account out of the blue simply because it doesn't like it; they don't need to give any explanations. In practice, however, Google holds some de facto power that is interfering with your fundamental rights.

That's not even getting in the point of when companies use their power to overthrow governments or to lobby for legislation to be steered to whatever is more favorable to them.

 

[Joe Dohn]

A monopoly is not per se bad; it is the abuse of a dominant position that is problematic, i.e. is the monopolist using its position to keep prices artificially high or drive out competitors?

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?

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.

 

[visualseed]

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.

In short, you have no clue what a monopoly is.

 

[d686546s]

Those are called benefits; not rights. No one has a right to someone else’s money.

Rights are generally what we say they are. Do you think property rights are any less a human construct than any other rights?

 

[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.

 

[MacProFCP]

Rights are generally what we say they are. Do you think property rights are any less a human construct than any other rights?

Without going too far off topic and into the political area. I will simply state the following to answer your question.

It is my believe that the difference is that rights are GD given and benefits are human given. What's mine is mine and yours is yours is the fairest form of personal ownership, yet, if I lack the basic empathy and compassion that makes us human, I wouldn't be a very nice person. Requiring me to give you what's mine, or taking what's mine, is theft.

Our job, as a society, is to define the fine line between taxing, taking what's mine, the minimum amount to ensure a productive society, without stifling the very ambition that betters society.

And that, ladies and gentleman, the question of where to draw the line, is a centuries old problem that will definitely not be resolved in a MacRumors forum.

Where were we again? Something about Apple's App Store... Right!

 

[MacProFCP]

And heck, I just realized that this is in the political forum. I could've had a lot more fun without getting in trouble!

But hey, I've said my piece and now... back to work.

 

[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.