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.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nice one ...

    ... conclusive evidence that Apple have not taken over the world, contrary to the drooling idiocy of some of their most ardent consumers.

    1. Ragarath

      Did you read the same article?

      It is an opinion. Nothing conclusive about it. notice the "We don't think" at the start of the last paragraph? And also the big bold black writing on the article OPINION?

      Some reading skills may help. It was interesting but there is a lot in the article to disagree with. I think some of their assumptions are way off.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        @rag-wrath

        Yes, an opinion by someone more expert than those spewing their uneducated and biased drivel around to the contrary.

        And don't even get me started about all the arrogant offensive twats on here.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Jobs Horns

      Not the world

      But they certainly seem to have taken over the media. The amount of free advertising for Apple products is unbelievable. Just as an example - if Apple have 20% of X market then they seem to get 80% of the media coverage of that market.

      1. dogged
        Stop

        Reason:

        Journalist discount.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Stop

        @AC re: Not the world

        Hmmmmm. You promote the very thing you decry. By that I mean, stop reading the articles and commenting on them and journalists will stop writing them. You are to blame for the problem you are complaining about.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        WTF?

        RE: Not the world

        I can't remember the last time I saw an advert for an Apple product. No wait. I can.

        It was for an iPhone and it was about 3 weeks ago.

        They've hardly taken over the media. There are an unnecessarily large number of articles about them here at El Reg. Someone has to give the haters something to grumble about though. Otherwise they'd be reduced to walking around muttering "humbug" to themselves.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Jobs Horns

          It's not the advertising

          Yes the iphone ads have stopped, but that is because the iphone 4 is about to be launched. At the minute it's all ipad - 'it's magical'. Just wait until the iphone 4 launches and it will seem like every ad break has an Apple advert.

          They pay for that, its entirely up to them how much they want to spend on marketing - they do bombard you with ads when they have a new product, fair enough but just look at how many articles there are on here, the BBC, Sky, ITV, Techcrunch, Toms, Cnet etc etc every single time Apple have a product coming out, or just because Steve jobs sneezes. You get articles for months in advance and then when it launches every second article seems to be about it. It wouldn't matter if a different company came up with a product that truly was revolutionary, chances are you would get an announcement that something was going to be launched and then a single review once it had been and as all the fanbois are so fond of reminding us on here Apple only have a very small market share. It's completely disproportional.

      4. aThingOrTwo

        It doesn't work like that…

        Android gets far more coverage than it deserves on the register proportional to its market share (especially in the UK).

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Pint

        Yeah, lots of free advertsing!

        They not be taking over the advertising media as such, but their products certainly get a lot of free airtime on US TV. The number of times I have seen white laptops appear in TV shows with the apple badge covered over. I think it was some kid's show they deliberately put a picture of a "pear" over the glowing fruit logo!

        Anyone see the Boots advert for online perscriptions hanging the window of every Boots shop, the laptop is white and obviously a 13" Macbook, once again Apple logos covered!

        Apple are very clever at making a product that fits rather too snugly into most ad campaigns for my liking!

    3. gurner
      Jobs Halo

      Nice one ...

      ... conclusive evidence that Apple have not taken over the world, contrary to the drooling idiocy of some of their most ardent critics.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      RE: Nice one ...

      "... conclusive evidence that Apple have not taken over the world, contrary to the drooling idiocy of some of their most ardent consumers."

      Either that or conclusive evidence that Apple have not taken over the world, contrary to the drooling idiocy of those who have been blathering (seemingly forever) about how terrible they are all over every El Reg forum.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yes, well...

    " 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."

    It's called competition, so get used to it. Google is competing directly with the iPhone, yet somehow Apple should allow them complete access to the iPhone so they can continue to rake in the dosh. Talk about a unilaterally parasitic relationship.

    As for Adobe, what company would want this slouch of a company on their high-priced handsets? Me-toos and Meego's maybe, but Adobe has yet to show a version of Flash that'll work well on a mobile. Having a Ghz minimum requirement for some online videos does not bode well. Andeven should they be able to produce such a magical beast, it will take developers months if not years to optimise their sites for touch, so why even bother? If you're going to code for touch, do it with open tech so it'll be available to all platforms.

    No site today can afford to shut out 100 million iOS users.

    But yet somehow Apple is acting like a spoiled child.

    1. Shazback

      Letters and digits (are required in the title)

      So, by following your logic, Google should have the right to deny access to anything Apple-related to their services?

      So, no Gmail, Google search, Google Books, Google reader, Google maps...

      Hell, why not push it further and refuse access to "invisible" services that Google provides, or embedded within apps/programs/features/websites? How well would all those iPad RSS readers work without FeedBurner? How would all those nice apps feel if they had to be re-developed to embed Bing maps or Mapquest?

      In fact, Google could push it to the limit and say that they'll not display ads on websites that are displayed on iDevices or Safari. Since websites use DoubleClick to generate revenue, they could just put in the Terms of Service that using DoubleClick on your website allows the advertising spec. to bring up a pop-up promoting Chrome/Android (or refuse to load the page) if Google judges that the device or program in question is affiliated with a competitor.

      See where this is going? There's a good reason why you're not allowed to completely shut out your competitors. If you're a monopoly, you're obliged to produce services that can be relied upon by other companies (see Microsoft getting in hot water for not producing interoperability specs in 2004). If you're not a monopoly, you're obliged to let your customers benefit from the choice of vendor and services they can expect (see the automobile industry spare parts market, where it's illegal to not publish replacement part specs, and to not honor honor a warranty because the spare parts used were not those of the vehicle manufacturer).

      Apple wants to enter the advertising game (which is a good move, since Google's position has become somewhat too dominant), but that doesn't give them the right to just ban Google from competing on their devices. It's as if you had a car manufacturer that says "all auto parts corresponding to the published specs installed by certified mechanics will be covered by warranty, except if the company that makes the spare parts also makes spare parts for other companies' cars, or if the mechanic also works on other companies' cars". Neither of the involved needs to be dominant in their industry for it to be illegal.

  3. Eponymous Howard
    FAIL

    Tell me..

    **behaving like a badly spoiled child with respect to what it will allow and not allow on any of its platforms.**

    ...did you pay *any* attention in class today?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not dominant, and never will be

    Apple will never appeal to the entire market, primarily because they aren't trying to. For example, it's possible to find cheaper kit than Apple's, but they aren't trying to compete in the 'cheap' market. For those who want 'cheap' above all else, there are suppliers who will provide what you're looking for.

    Most people using iWhatever don't care if you can't install apps through other outlets because they get such incredible, simple, reliable service through Apple's system. For those with the time, ability, and inclination to do otherwise, there are companies that will provide.

    To that end, it isn't acting "like a spoiled child" - it has worked hard to delineate and understand its target market and acted to meet its customer's needs. This won't please everyone, but they aren't trying to. This is simply good business.

    Microsoft seems moribund simply because, having crushed the desktop OS and office software markets and lacking the internal culture to innovate, it has nowhere else to go. The antitrust measures taken against it simply ensure that it doesn't leverage its existing monopolies to crush others.

    The company that should be worried about antitrust measures is Google. It has a dangerous monopoly on search, which could easily be turned against other markets if it also moves into sales.

    1. Lou Gosselin

      Re: Not dominant, and never will be

      That's one of the limitations of anti-trust law.

      It doesn't matter if a corp is behaving badly until it has monopoly status. The reality is that an entity with < 50% market share can still do a great deal of harm to smaller competitors such that they cannot effectively compete. Walmart, though not a monopoly, is still able to abuse it's competition.

      The situation gets worse if there is an oligopoly of anti-competitive companies with near total market share, since separately they are untouchable with anti-trust.

      1. Periquet dels Palots
        Jobs Horns

        Even if not dominant, they may fall under the Antitrust Eye

        Under USA antitrust law you can land in hot water for anticompetitive behavior even if you don't have more than 50% of the market. Initiatives to actively harm the competition also count, such as inopinately changing the rules you impose for other to access your markets, producs or services , cherrypicking concurrents to markets you create, blocking technologies not because you don't need them, but provably to harm a competitor, altering protocols to lock out the competition, lying about the competition, etc.

        Many things Apple is doing (I don't say they've done ALL of the former) may warrant a deep look by the antitrust commision. Now, they may be guilty, or not, but maybe soon that will have to be decided.

    2. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
      Linux

      @Ralph 5

      You say tomato, I say tomato. Hmmmm, that doesn't work so well written down, does it?

      Spoilt child it is. Petulance and throwing of toys. Of course, a certain segment of the market actually likes that, so it's fair enough as a marketing strategy, but not for me, thanks.

      GJC

  5. Trokair 1
    Jobs Horns

    Court case unnecessary

    Simple economics will do. Already stated in the the article that iphone does not dominate the market on equipment numbers. How many developers want to continue to develop on a closed platform with 1/8 of the market vs. developing on a platform that is supported by the other 7/8s of the market? The iphone dominated when it had the first "popular" incarnation of apps and a market place but now that it is being replicated the iphone has lost its edge and its market share will follow.

    Had Apple not locked the phone into specific networks and not locked down the development of apps I think they would have had a much larger piece of the market and would be much harder to compete with. Stanglehold control has damaged the product.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      @Trockair

      "Stanglehold control has damaged the product."

      Who says it's a numbers game. Apple isn''t playing that game, that's a game dominated by companies like Dell and Gateway (to name just 2). Damaged the product? No.

    2. lookingsideways
      Stop

      "Stanglehold control has damaged the product." - Really?

      "Stanglehold control has damaged the product."

      The same stranglehold that lets them sell 600,000 handsets in the first 24 hours before anyone (outside a few of the press) has even had hands-on time with said handset?

      Has it not occurred to you that perhaps the (fairly reasonable, tbh) restrictions that are in place in the iPhone/iPad world are actually there to provide the experience that Apple's target market really wants? Guess what, if you can't get on with the iPhone because it has x restriction in place that attempts to guarantee a seamless experience then you probably aren't part of that market.

      The iPhone has been the first series of phones that truly unifies the smartphone experience. Before the iPhone there was huge fragmentation between handsets, OS', and operators that made being able to use a smartphone to it's full potential almost impossible for the average guy/gal on the street. If it wasn't for Apple's "restrictive" policies then it would have been much harder for such a platform to develop.

      We need to try and think outside our little bubble now and then, the world is a much larger place and the IT/power users that may actually care about such policies and restrictions is minuscule in comparison to that which the iPhone caters for.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      RE: Court case unnecessary

      "How many developers want to continue to develop on a closed platform with 1/8 of the market vs. developing on a platform that is supported by the other 7/8s of the market?"

      Which is this miraculous platform that is on 7/8ths of the world's mobiles then?

      "Had Apple not locked the phone into specific networks and not locked down the development of apps I think they would have had a much larger piece of the market and would be much harder to compete with."

      The phone is no longer locked to any network (at least not in the UK) and it's always been possible to buy one second hand and put in a SIM from whatever network you choose...

      Apple don't seem to have locked down the development of apps either. There are some restrictions but go and have a look at them - you won't find any that are going to prevent you making apps.

      btw. Their phone is already pretty hard to compete with... having used one, I won't be going back to the rubbish I used to buy from Motorola.

  6. Gordon is not a Moron

    If they do probe over iAd

    Then the net should go wider than just the iPlatform advertising. If you were looking at a choice between two online ad companies, one that covered 90% of the population and one that covered 100% with the extra 10% being technology magpies with more money than sense. Then using the company with 100% coverage makes more sense and will have an impact far wider than companies not being able to advertise inside a small walled garden.

  7. Daniel 1

    "You can’t imagine someone bringing an anti-trust suit for print drivers."

    Richard Stallman and the Xerox 9700?

    Alright, he didn't exactly start an antitrust case, but he hasn't shut up about it, since, either.

  8. Mr Brush
    Jobs Horns

    Its Ironic...

    that the very same petulant behavior that is preventing Apple making greater market gains is keeping Mr Jobs safe from being punished for it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      RE: Its Ironic

      "that the very same petulant behavior that is preventing Apple making greater market gains is keeping Mr Jobs safe from being punished for it."

      Speculation, groundless speculation - unless of course, you're an expert market analyst and can back that up with figures?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Headmaster

      RE: Its Ironic...

      I'll bet Jobs can spell "It's" properly.

      If Jobs was really "petulant" and this was hindering the company, the shareholders would have him out.

  9. Lewis Mettler 1
    FAIL

    not the law that matters

    It may be true that it would be difficult to prove that Apple holds any kind of monopoly power. An exception would be monopoly power on Apple compatible PCs and Phone. And yes, they can be proven to be separate markets for antitrust purposes. Not yet perhaps. The Psystar case lost primarily because Psystar was violating copyright laws. And a antitrust argument is not a defense against that regardless of what they did.

    But, the real problem is that antitrust authorities simply do not care to enforce antitrust law.

    You can make up stories about antitrust has changed Microsoft but Microsoft still illegally bundles IE with the OS. And, yes, the US Appellate Court decided that commingling code between the OS and IE was in fact illegal. But, the stupid US DOJ acted to make sure that the illegal acts continued unabated. And today IE is still illegally commingled with OS code. (Not once did Microsoft uncommingle the code).

    Then along comes the EU Commission and they do nothing either.

    Sure, there is a ballot screen but IE remains a forced purchase by anyone foolish enough to use any Microsoft product. And that illegal act precludes any possibility of a fair and open market for browsers ever. Not until the OS monopoly goes away can any fair and open market exist.

    So if you have two antitrust authorities so stupid so as not to even understand what they do and then fail completely to stop Microsoft's illegal conduct, there is no doubt that Apple will engage in illegal activities as well. Apple lawyers know that antitrust authorities can simply be bought. Or, persuaded politically. However you want to describe the complete failure to block Microsoft from forcing the sale of IE upon everyone in the marketplace.

    And yes, you can argue that Apple does not even have monopoly power. Yet, anyway. They do in Apple PCs. PCs that run the Apple OS. That is a monopoly.

    The question remains how effective such power actually is.

    If Apple blocks Google ads on the iProducts, those products lose value. As stated in the article, the Android OS is ready to serve as a ready substitute for the Apple OS on phones. And that is likely to be the result. And the more arrogant Apple appears the quicker Android will take over the marketplace. I doubt that any technology alone is going to be significant enough to maintain the market power Apple thinks it has. As the ads say, without restrictions, droid does.

    It is really sad it see ignorant antitrust authorities in the US and the EU. Pure stupidity on their part. It encourages not only Microsoft to continue illegal practics but also tells Apple that the authorities are just not relevant. And they are not. Microsoft continues to forced sale of IE upon everyone. And there is no developer anywhere on the planet that can not understand what those forced sales might mean to their code. NOBODY can be so stupid not to understand that.

    Got a product to sell? Get a monopolist to force everyone to buy it. No problem. No marketing required. No intelligence either. In the product or the marketing. Just force all of the idiots to buy it. If you have a copy of IE anyway, you are an idiot. You paid cash money for IE and your opinion simply does not matter.

    What a job if you can get it? Just force all the idiots to pay cash for your product. And all of the idiots do precisely that. Cash goes out. IE shows up.

    You can blame Apple for seeing the obvious. Authorites do nothing if you can buy them off.

    1. FailedTrolleyStacker
      WTF?

      @Lewis Mettler

      "but Microsoft still illegally bundles IE with the OS"

      How is this illegal in today's networked world? An OS without a browser is useless. For the end user the browser is more or less the OS nowadays. That's why Google is working on Chrome and Chrome OS. MS don't prevent you from installing other software. They don't prevent you from installing Google search which uses Google's Ad system do they? Apple does.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Flame

        "Apple does."

        "MS don't prevent you from installing other software. They don't prevent you from installing Google search which uses Google's Ad system do they?" Let's wait and see until there ne mobile OS is out, shall we? Oh! Your talking about desktops! Then my friend you are talking out of your arse. No they don't. Stop with the idiotic FUD. There are several browsers available for the Mac OS (in fact pretty much all the ones that are available for Windows, except for IE which is ONLY available for Windows; are Microsoft being restrictive?). The issue with Internet Explorer was that Microsoft had embedded it so deep into the OS that it couldn't be fully removed. Want to get rid of Safari completely on a Mac? Drag it into the trash, go to the Finder menu a select 'Secure Empty Trash...' and it's gone forever. Couldn't do that with Windows and that is how they *put another company* out of business. THAT was the issue. Fuckwit.

    2. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
      Grenade

      "Illegal" browsers

      So I guess it is equally illegal for Apple to bundle Safari into OSX, then?

      C'mon, get with the programme. This is the 21st Century, browsers as a free OS tool are a fact of life. But then, if you accepted that, you wouldn't have anything to whine about with Microsoft, would you? Retard.

      GJC

  10. Lou Gosselin

    Yep

    This article makes all the points I've been saying.

    Apple are anti-competitive and over-controlling, which severely limits both 3rd party developers and users in terms of what they can do on closed platforms. But apple's behavior doesn't become illegal until they have a monopoly.

    The balance between open and closed platforms is always at risk; if people don't stand up and invest in open platforms, then they will soon fall under corporate control.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      @Lou Gosselin

      "This article makes all the points I've been saying."

      Who care what you've been saying, we don't go to lougosselin.co.uk to read your articles, do we?

      1. Lou Gosselin

        @AC

        You cared enough to comment.

  11. Steen Hive
    FAIL

    Market

    Again. Apple produces an SDK and toolkit for 3rd party companies to compete in the software market for iPhones. It exercises 100% monopoly control on the supply of this 3rd-party software in an arbitary and abusive fashion. When it allowed 3rd-party development for the platform it created a market which it abuses.

    String 'em up.

    1. Steve Todd
      Stop

      What, just like

      Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo produce SDKs and toolkits for their games platforms for 3rd parties to produce competing games, and then exercise 100% monopoly control over the titles that are licensed and published? You don't honestly think that anyone can just wander along and cut a game disk do you?

      Apple's iOS platform is for appliances, not general purpose computing machines. It is explicitly closed for good reasons, and there are plenty of alternative platforms if you don't like it. You don't get in trouble for having 100% control over your own platform, you get in trouble for having a platform that dominates the market and using that position to exert unreasonable control over the rest of the market.

      1. Steen Hive
        FAIL

        No not just like..

        Although Sony, MS et all have some ridiculous policies, and it's hideously expensive for example ($10,000+) to get a dev kit for the PS3 etc, these policies don't include allowing you to develop an app then stop you from selling it through the only channel available.

        And yes, just anyone can wander along and cut a game disc and sell it how they like, notwithstanding the costs of entry.

        Anti-trust law doesn't give a monkeys about what iOS is or isn't for. The market is software not appliances, the very existence of an "app store" should be a dead giveaway that this is a "general purpose computing device" anyway. you can't have your straw-men both ways

        1. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          @Bee Hive

          Turn the world around to suit your argument. You've got to be kidding. App store makes the device (which is Apple's by the fucking way) general purpose computing. Well, in that case PS3 games are merely applications that run on a games console, so the PS3 is a general computing device, therefore they are are a monopoly, therefore I have no choice in games, therefore anti-trust law must support this idiotic logic you are spouting and close Sony altogether.

          1. Steen Hive
            FAIL

            That's right

            Play the man, not the ball, Anonymous.

            "general purpose computing?" - There's an app for that.

            Dissemble all you want, the device isn't Apple's - it's the consumers, Sony don't monopolise the market in PS3 applications, in fact up till recently you could run an "OtherOS" on a PS3 - removing it was also a shitty decision. Punt your retarded, fawning, obsequious Apple crap to someone who gives a shit.

  12. Turtle

    Important Point Left Out

    it is not necessary to be a monopoly in order to act in restraint of trade and to be engaged in anti-competitive behavior. I would be interested in seeing the author address this point.

    1. DZ-Jay

      Re: Important Point Left Out

      The author does not need to address this point because it is out of the scope of the article. The topic of the article is not what is anti-competitive behaviour or how it can be discerned, but how Apple is not a monopoly as some regard it. It is specifically addressing the point that normally legal behaviour *may* be illegal when a company is dominant, and explaining why this does not apply to Apple.

      In other words, Apple is not violating anti-trust laws because it has not reached monopoly status. It is granted that the behaviour we are discussing is normally legal behaviour for dominant companies.

      >> "its App Store also cannot be considered dominant, because it’s a relatively new idea, so the market has not had time to settle down. Market dominance is impossible to prove in a new market. You could claim that Apple has dominance in the intelligent tablet market with the iPad. But that’s just because no one has had a chance to market anything against it yet."

      >> "if Apple does fairly obnoxious things to keep rivals out of its App Store and off its phones, then that will only have the effect of upsetting a number of developers, some of them rivals. It is fair competitiveness and at worst is short sighted."

      -dZ.

  13. Gilbo
    Thumb Up

    In Summary

    Everyone scroll back up and re-read Ralph 5's comment, please.

  14. B 9

    @Mr Brush

    "behavior that is preventing Apple making greater market gains"

    How are they being prevented? Their year over year increases in sales in computers have been double the industry rate. iPods have a huge percentage of the market. iPhone growth has been explosive, and based on the interest in pre-orders for iPhone 4 it continues to grow. iPad has leaped off to stellar sales numbers so far.

    Apple is making great market gains and the share price and financial health of the company are reflecting that fact. Simple fact is they haven't done anything illegal and THAT is why they won't get punished for it. All of this clamor is from competitors who are realizing the tables are turning on them and they are hoping government intervention will bail them out.

    1. Martin Owens

      Futuristic

      Call me in 10 years when you've been burned horribly, I'll have the worlds smallest open source violin playing a sad song just for you.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Alert

        RE: Futuristic

        It's going to have to be a pretty special computer to still be in use in 10 years time...

  15. peter 5 Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    I just wannna say...

    ...Nice article. Thanks.

  16. This post has been deleted by its author

  17. DZ-Jay

    Banned?

    Have I been banned? My messages to this forum do not seem to appear. I wonder what I have done.

    -dZ.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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!

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. 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.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like