Does Apple push its own products over others? Yes. No ****. What company wouldn't? I don't see Lenovo out here pushing Macs, or Target selling Walmart brand stuff. 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Justice Department Ramps Up Apple Investigation Amid Antitrust Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And the Government has a long standing history of understanding how technology works.
It welcomes competition "on the App Store" not with.
But, IMO, this should go nowhere. Apple created this business from nothing using a new programming language to create applications. There are issues with the business model. Apple, however, created a business platform that did not previously exist for the small developers; the costs seem quite reasonable for what it provided. Note that it is the large developers that are doing most of the complaining.
This reminds me of a homeowner that got a great deal on house because it was next to the airport. And then starts to complain about airport noise.
None of what you mentioned is particularly accurate. For example, Apple didn't start off with a new programming language with the introduction of the AppStore. Swift ( if that's what you are referring to ) was introduced in 2014. The AppStore was introduced in 2008. ObjectiveC already existed.
Your analogy is complete off too. They are very different.
Companies shouldn't be allowed to abuse their market position - whether or not they created that market - and which remains to be seen if Apple has, or possible abuse needs to be remedied. Hence the purpose of the investigation.
Good stuff! It's about time Apple is held to same rules as everyone else and isn't made invincible by all the backroom meetings with politicians and stupid amounts of lobbying being done.
Mark my words — nothing will change. Doing a search for “music” in the App Store, an ad for TIDAL is at the top, followed by Apple Music, then Musi (never heard of it), then Spotify. Is Apple Music listed because that is the app I use, or because most iOS users prefer this? In either case, I would want to see that app at the top. Something has to be at the top.
According to Apple, search rankings are based on "a number of factors" including text relevance and user behavior.
Search Optimization - App Store - Apple Developer
Search traffic accounts for the majority of downloads from the App Store. Learn more about how you can impact where your app ranks in search results to help users more easily find your app.
and then apple increases prices and upsells more services to make up for lost revenue.
"we'll all be better" is simply not true.
All the tech companies have unfortunately learned a painful, but valuable lesson. They foolishly spent profits on employee perks and stock buybacks. They naively thought they didn't need to spend money on lobbying. They've spent comparatively little compared to other industries. I have a feeling that is about to change in a big way.
In any case, Apple and Google will change their policies to comply with the law, and they'll have an out. If any developers or consumers are unhappy about changes that result, Apple and Google can just shrug their shoulders and say they're complying with the law. Google is in a bit of a bigger pickle - any changes to regulations around advertising and privacy are a bigger problem for them. Apple will find other revenue streams, app sales aren't their primary source. They can just start charging more for Xcode and/or the developer program. It's not as though developers are going to immediately abandon a profitable platform.
In any case, Apple and Google will change their policies to comply with the law, and they'll have an out. If any developers or consumers are unhappy about changes that result, Apple and Google can just shrug their shoulders and say they're complying with the law. Google is in a bit of a bigger pickle - any changes to regulations around advertising and privacy are a bigger problem for them. Apple will find other revenue streams, app sales aren't their primary source. They can just start charging more for Xcode and/or the developer program. It's not as though developers are going to immediately abandon a profitable platform.
That's a rather simplistic and shortsighted view of why enforcing antitrust is critical
it's not. it's being logical. in the past couple of decades, apple has never eaten the major costs of anything. they have shareholders to answer to and they have plenty of levers to pull to keep and/or increase profits.
I'm not sure what the point is here. Every company seeks to maximize profits and minimize costs. This isn't a concept that is unique to Apple. Apple is already doing everything they can to maximize their profit margins. I'm sure they have a pretty good idea of where their price elasticity is at and how many fewer phones they would sell for each increased price point. I'm sure they have already determined that a higher price would result in lower profits or they already would have increased the price. You point out they have shareholders to answer to but then claim they also have untapped ways to increase profit. If they have profit levers at their disposal then why are they waiting on news costs to realize their full potential? No, they can't simply just pass any and all costs along and expect to remain at the same level of profit they currently enjoy.
Uhuh. And my $30/month subscription for Apple One... does $10 of that go to someone else? No. Apple receives the full $30. Everyone else only gets two thirds of it.
When Apple submits a bugfix update, does app review reject it for no reason? No.
So, your argument is that dominant companies should be allowed to violate antitrust laws/regulations and potentially stifle competition and innovation because if they are "prosecuted" they will simply upsell more services and find other ways to raise prices?
I guess you then feel there's no reason to have business laws and regulations?
Increasing price of the iPhone isn't the only way to increase/keep margins. But also, see reports of Apple creating an even more expensive phone.
By giving up Apple's DNA. We've already seen this happen. We never had ads under Steve Job's leadership. Now we constantly get them via push notifications and the App Store. Apple never really cared about our data under Steve Job's leadership. Now Apple collects data by default unless you specifically say no or manually turn it off.
What else can they do? Oh I don't know, who said we needed 5 years of software updates? Perhaps we're now going to only get 3-4 years. Still beats most Android phones so it's not like customers will suddenly switch to Android because they're missing out on 1 year of updates.
Anything else? Sure. Apple Maps have always been free for all iOS developers while Google Maps charges developers a hefty penny. Now that third party app stores might be a thing, Apple will start charging for Map usage on iOS apps (for one, Facebook serves billions of their users Apple Maps data, they could easily start paying millions per month to use Apple Maps which would still be cheaper than using Google Maps). All Apple has to do is undercut Google Maps' pricing by 50% and iOS developers would still use Apple Maps. Plenty of other developer services like CloudKit have levers to pull.
What else? Oh instead of planning on doubling base storage or having iPhone feature XYZ by 202X, they'll just hold off until 202X + 1. Increase design refreshes by +1 year. Reduce Apple Music royalties on next negotiation (which are already higher than Spotify)? Increase iCloud storage pricing by $1 (which they already did before)? Develop iMessage for Android/Windows + bundle with Apple music + iCloud storage and charge $20/mo to use it? The list goes on and on.
So you're absolutely wrong. They *are* pulling profit levers and they have plenty more.
Last edited:
Apple owns the store. As in every business, there is a wholesale price and the retail markup. if Kroger sells their store brand, they get to keep both the wholesale and retail markup. Otherwise, they only keep the retail markup. In Apple's case, yes, they get to keep the full value. In every other case, Apple keeps the retail markup.
How so? You are complaining about losing innovation due to consolidation in markets that didn't even exist a decade and a half ago and were never very diverse to begin with. If anything, innovation and progress are thriving. But you are worried because the supply side of this particular market went from two and half major players down to two.
Oh please... I've had hard core Apple fans (we're talking those who own $10K worth of Mac hardware. Not just the "I buy a new iPhone every 2 years crowd) say that Apple's always been like the Big Brother they mocked in that commercial. The only difference is Apple did a better job of hiding it back then is all.
Still, I'd get a kick out of such an updated commercial. An image of Steve Jobs is talking on the big screen about how everything is secure, locked down, the burden of "unnecessary choices" are removed from the consumer. Then you have some Fortnite character run in and throw a hammer at the screen
🤟, while being chased down by members of the Apple Worldwide Loyalty Team (some of them are ex-FBI by the way)!
What is Apple doing that is illegal? And on what basis is Apple a "Trust" that needs to be broken.
IMO, the rules that Apple has for the App Store are nominally the same since it started. There could be an argument for alternative payment systems. But that exists already since Netflix and Amazon Kindle have not been using Apple's payment system for a long time. Is Apple promoting its own applications? Likely yes. But is it to the detriment or exclusion of others?
From what I have read over the years, the argument seems to fall into 2 buckets: 1) some developers would like to avoid Apple's 30% fee. And 2) some users would like to install whatever they want. Not sure that either of those would necessarily happen, even if the government "won."
IMO, the rules that Apple has for the App Store are nominally the same since it started. There could be an argument for alternative payment systems. But that exists already since Netflix and Amazon Kindle have not been using Apple's payment system for a long time. Is Apple promoting its own applications? Likely yes. But is it to the detriment or exclusion of others?
From what I have read over the years, the argument seems to fall into 2 buckets: 1) some developers would like to avoid Apple's 30% fee. And 2) some users would like to install whatever they want. Not sure that either of those would necessarily happen, even if the government "won."
Absolutely right. Because all those distribution costs, development tools and APIs and everything else that Apple provides that enables companies like Spotify to build and deliver their apps to their users costs Apple nothing to provide. Apple just takes in that money for nothing. It doesn’t cost Apple anything to deliver all that for their own apps either. It’s completely unreasonable that Apple should want some kind of compensation for all that. How dare they.
Yes, I’m being sarcastic.