back to article Apple not yet dominant enough for anti-trust action

Apple is rapidly becoming an anti-trust target and right now it is behaving like a badly spoiled child with respect to what it will allow and not allow on any of its platforms. This is reflected in decisions to keep Adobe and any other development environment off its devices, and more recently in its proposed new developer terms …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge
    Pint

    Apple are dominant

    The dominance is "the market for Apple gear." Apple have carved out a market called Apple, run by Apple, full only of Apple and Apple-approved-friends. It might actually be unprecedented in the history of business.

    Collectors have been known to have a similar affection for a particular company or item. Look at the guys with the largest “Wizard of Oz memorabilia” collections, or “every single Barbie doll ever made.”

    Apple’s unique success is in creating that level of attachment to new and upcoming products rather than some dusty bit of history. iPhones aren’t competing with cell phones, and Macs don’t compete with PCs.* The only thing an iPhone competes with is other Mac hardware. That money was going to an Apple product one way or another, the only question was “which one.”

    So Apple is dominant; dominant in the market of Apple. The question truly is…should anyone care about this? They have invented their own market, one which no one even seems interested in duplicating. (Sony did try, during the 80s and 90s…but seems to have given up lately.) Apple isn’t selling gizmos or software…they’re selling an EXPERIENCE. They sell a culture, a sense of belonging. They sell fashion and fads, hip, cool, and their gear works just good enough to detract from the happy fluffy field.

    Is that a bad thing though? People need a sense of belonging. They need to feel good about what they have bought; sometimes they even need a reason to feel smug. (Hey, if you are the downtrodden guy that gets picked on, or just got dumped, what-have-you...instant ego boost is worth real money.) The reason people call this a “cult” is that it really looks it from the outside. People are buying into the culture or experience…but is it that much different than people who play World of Warcraft? Or those who spend their time at the same karaoke bar every Friday? What about those who join a blowing league or take yoga?

    The only difference between the WoW player going home to seek comfort in his online community and the Apple fanatic browsing Cupidtino from his iPad in the coffee shop is that the Apple fanatic actually gets a usable piece of elegantly designed, functional electronics equipment for his investment of money and time.

    Apple’s market then is a monopoly on actually providing people something of value for taking advantage of their addictive need for social inclusion. (And perhaps more importantly, the need of those same people to EXCLUDE others.) To me, for all the many and myriad faults and complaints I could fire at Apple; abusing their “dominant position” is not one I could ever support.

    *I realise that some people do carefully weight alternatives, and choose what they perceive to be “the best product,” and in this sense Apple does actually compete with others. I maintain that Apple supporters who perform this level of analysis before purchasing are small enough to be considered a rounding error.

  2. Martin Nicholls
    Linux

    Antitrust

    You don't have to be a monopoly to be anti-competative. It was microsofts position, but that was arguably due to market failings rather than anything Microsoft did to get into that position.

    The market is an oligopoly, it's right that everybody in the market has a checkup every now and then to ensure things don't go wrong.

    Be nice if we can trust the regulators to do this rather than have them using an it's not Microsoft so we'll leave them alone aproach, when Apple is clearly damaging other players.

  3. Wallyb132
    WTF?

    I dont agree...

    The author says that apple doesnt have enough of any market to be a monopoly and that the app store is too new to take action against, and besides developers give away bunches of free software on the app store so it'll be hard to prove wrong doing...

    Wrong on all parts,

    Anti-trust pre-flight checklist:

    Has a 99% market share of mobile apps - Check

    Abusive to customers, partners and competitors - Check

    Prevents direct competition by restricting platform - Check

    Because the app store and downloadable OTA installed mobile apps is the future of software (granted its still a ways away, but OTA software purchase / install will eventually be the sole software model) or at least consumer software, the market isnt too young to intervene, intervention is must at this early stage to prevent long term damage to this market on all sides.

    The article says because they allow free software that anti-trust laws cant touch them, or doing so would tough, its not about the free apps that apples platform allow to propagate to the great unwashed, not at all, its about the software that never makes to the great unwashed, the software that gets rejected, because the dominate market player wont allow an or type of app because it competes with their own software, or does something the appholes in charge doesnt like, regardless of its value or usefulness to the end user.

    There is sufficient cause and legal standing to go after apple now and it needs to happen. the quicker they burst apples bubble, the less it will hurt, the higher they're allowed to climb the more it'll hurt when they when they come crashing back to earth.

    The FTC is doing the wright thing, and now the ITC too...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      @Wallyb0

      You forgot to preface your highly illogical rant with an IAALBIWLALO (I am a lawyer because I watched LA Law once).

      "There is sufficient cause and legal standing to go after apple now and it needs to happen."

      That's as well thought through and well articulated as the Chewbacca defense.

      I leave you with this omitted line from your post, "look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey."

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      (untitled)

      "Has a 99% market share of mobile apps - Check" Erm, no they don't. Actually that's not strictly true; they have 99% share of the iPhone app market. Much like Tesco have 99% market share of Tesco products (US readed; please replace Tesco with Walmart or Trader Joe's). nothing Unlawful or anti-competative about that. Apple got their knuckles rapped in the UK for suggesting that apps were "Only on iPhone..." by the ASA. A full anti-trust investigation isn't warranted.

      "Abusive to customers, partners and competitors" In legal term, that doesn't mean rude. You know that, right? Some customers get a raw deal. So do some of Googles. So do some of Toyota's, as do some NHS patient (who are essentially customers). Unfortunately, that's life. Some will have been genuinely mislead, but I'd wager that the vast majority will be exaggerating the issue. That's life. We can't go around investigating and breaking up companies because a minority, and it is a minority, of customers get a raw deal. If *EVERYONE* got a raw deal, then fair enough! Partners? Who exactly? Competitors? No more so than others. Before iPhone, Google seemed intent on copying RIM! Or are you referring to Adobe? Do they make an OS? No. Show me the part of anti-trust legislation that say a company must be compatible with another's products. Yes, Google could block access to their products on Apple devices and that *would* be anti-competative. Adobe could stop making products for Apple's OS; in fact most Apple/Adobe users would argue that Adobe already have! Apple aren't doing the equivalent though. Flash is just another inefficient interpreter. It may be a 'defacto' standard, but that doesn't mean that Apple are obliged to support it.

      "Prevents direct competition by restricting platform" From whom? Are they restricting the Blackberry platform? Symbian? Android?

      "Because the app store and downloadable OTA installed mobile apps is the future of software (granted its still a ways away, but OTA software purchase / install will eventually be the sole software model) or at least consumer software, the market isnt too young to intervene, intervention is must at this early stage to prevent long term damage to this market on all sides." I take it you mean web apps and the cloud. As I have already suggested, Apple aren't the sole distributors of mobile apps. They *are* for the iPhone, but the iPhone has a relatively small market share. As you point out, the market place in it's infancy, so let's wait and see. OTA content isn't really the same thing as web apps by the way...

      "The article says because they allow free software that anti-trust laws cant touch them, or doing so would tough, its not about the free apps that apples platform allow to propagate to the great unwashed, not at all, its about the software that never makes to the great unwashed, the software that gets rejected, because the dominate market player wont allow an or type of app because it competes with their own software, or does something the appholes in charge doesnt like, regardless of its value or usefulness to the end user." Bollocks! Apple have made so HUGE mistakes in this area, but what you are suggesting is just bullshit. Look at the *actual* figures. The vast majority of submitted apps actually get though. Apple need to be more transparent and perhaps publish guidelines, I doubt that anyone would disagree with that, but you are suggesting that Apple be investigated because you don't understand or like their business model.

      "There is sufficient cause and legal standing to go after apple now and it needs to happen. the quicker they burst apples bubble, the less it will hurt, the higher they're allowed to climb the more it'll hurt when they when they come crashing back to earth." In that statement, you have given away your position. You're just pissed because they are successful! Grow up!

  4. OrsonX

    I feel sorry for Apple

    Anti-trust = punishment for success.

    The end result of capitalism is ipso facto one company winning, except this isn't allowed to happen and we get stupid anti-trust laws instead.

    Lame.

  5. mayadanteamihan

    Spoiled?

    I'm amused at your calling Apple a spoiled child. They appear quite reasonable to me, especially Steve Jobs when he spoke at D8. The ones I call spoiled brats are the young, immature executives at Google and Adobe who throw tantrums when their attempts at dominance are frustrated.

  6. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

    There is just one question..

    .. and I think ti is the most critical of all.

    Apple is mainly a HARDWARE company. It's got damn good software to go with the kit, but hardware has one problem: you have to make physical goods from a finite amount of parts which takes time, logistics and imposes some sort of throughput limit (especially when you have a component problem).

    Let's assume Apple suddenly gets an actual monopoly grip on a market shared by Wintel and Lintel (cough) - could it meet such demand? If that trend I saw in private banks set through (replacing Wintel with OSX kit), could Apple actually cope with the demand?

    Until you know this for sure I think talks of a monopoly are somewhat OTT. OK, monopoly on a platform that actually does what it says on the tin, and is less inclined to treat its customers as beta testers - in that aspect it appears to have moved itself into a monopoly position.

    But as far as I can see you're still welcome to go elsewhere. Don't like iPhone App restrictions? Well, there is Android, and *cough* Windows. Apple isn't stopping anyone doing their own thing (AFAIK), it simply does a good job at present by producing stuff that people want and even creating new markets. I cannot blame Apple for wanting to protect its own market, but AFAIK it's not at all engaged in keeping people from doing this for themselves. That is not to say they don't screw up occasionally, but on the whole I'm actually rather impressed by Apple.

    So is this really a monopoly concern or just plain competitive jealousy?

  7. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Dominance isn't the be all and end all

    What this article highlights is the case of having a problem but no mechanism to fix it.

    Take democratic elections - There's clearly no dominant position of any party as we all have entirely free choice in how we vote and can even choose not to vote, but it is not uncommon in first past the post to have the winning party claiming a mandate having more votes 'against them' than for, while some parties are almost completely locked-out of Parliament despite a credible share of popular vote.

    To many people the system is seriously broken and completely unfair, but there's no mechanism to change anything from outside unless the government of the day agrees to change. It's all well and good saying "vote with your feet" but we all know it's not as simple as that, and it can even be used as the excuse the system is working well when it isn't.

    We're stuck in a trap; unfair doesn't make for anti-trust, and lack of anti-trust allows unfairness. We have no means of actually addressing the core problem of unfairness.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like