These are exactly the kinds of issues antitrust legislation needs to be updated to handle.
I have no issue with a company running a store and selling its own products within, but it has to provide a level playing field.
It's good they fixed it -- that the VP in question didn't know it had been done and then nixed it -- but this shouldn't even be legal in the first place.
Speaking of anti-trust, surely Apple must be getting close to (or beyond) what Microsoft were? Total control over their users, hidden APIs, apparently biased store, rentseeking etc.
My £0.02 is that if they aren't already over the line the line should be nudged against their favour.
They're nothing like Microsoft was; Windows was something like 97% of all PCs. I'm not aware of Apple having more than 50% of any market. You can't abuse a monopoly that you don't have. (Of course, collusion/duopoly and saying that they dominate some smaller market, say paid mobile apps, are valid arguments, but nothing like as cut-and-dry as peak MS).
I dont know how others that were there in the 90s thick about it. But I do think Apple today is way more powerful than Microsoft in the 90s. Your PC in the 90s were not the access point of anything in the society other than some games or spreadsheets. Not to mention most of the population dont even have a PC. PC in terms of reach to population is basically a niche.
These days it is hard to argue that. Excluding child and grannies US literally has 100% smartphone ownership. And smartphone ( or more like a pocket personal computer ) is our access point for a lot of thing in our society, and increasingly for almost everything. And it has to go through App Store where Apple is the judge, jury and executioner.
I can go across the street to a dozen different stores. If I travel a little further, I can go to even more stores.
No matter where I go, with Apple and Google, I'm have to use their payment systems and give each of them a 30% cut of my apps' revenue. They both have a duopoly in the mobile operating systems market and the mobile app distribution market, and Apple has the majority of the market share in both markets in the US.
The difference is that Walmart didn't build the street or the city and doesn't have a right to take a cut of sales on other people's property. A more apt comparison would be the third-party hotels that, if they want to use some of Disney's 25,000 acres in Florida[0], literally have to lease the land from Disney and Disney can impose terms like a cut of sales (or a forced Disney merchandise store within the hotel). iOS is like the consumer choosing to live exclusively within the confines of Disney's property (with the difference being that, once you 'leave' iOS, you can't bring stuff back into the city - honestly this is the digital equivalent of what Walt Disney wanted with E.P.C.O.T.[1]).
There are tons of resorts and hotels completely unrelated to Disney that exist right at the gates of Disnyworld that offer shuttles. There are even more resorts in Kissimmee that are just a short drive away. As someone who has been to Disneyworld over a dozen times and never once stayed in a Disney resort, there are a ton of places to stay and still visit Disneyworld.
As a person who has been involved in real estate around that area I'm fully cognizant that many of the resorts that appear to be outside the gates of Disneyworld are technically on Disney real estate. When looking at maps its pretty easy to see what is and is not Disney property, as soon after you leave Disney property there's tons of chain shops and other stuff right outside the gates. I've still never stayed on a resort or hotel on Disney lands and its disingenuous (I'd say a lie) to say most hotels in Kissimmee that offer shuttle service to Disneyworld are leasing land from Disney. You do realize Disney doesn't own the entire state of Florida quite yet, right?
Thank You. It is tiring those analogy continues to be made when they are over simplify to the point of being wrong. Despite giving them an explanation how the world actually works.
I don't see any uneven playing field when it comes to grocery stores.
The national brands and store brands are always next to each other on the same shelf. So there isn't any problem that needs solving. Also brands already pay for promotional positioning (like the ends of aisles), and when the store puts its own brands in those spots it loses out on those payments, and so is effectively paying equally.
So the field doesn't need any evening out there.
If grocery stores ever started putting the name-brand stuff in a back room that took twice as long to get to, then it might become an issue, but as of right now it's just not.
The brand names pay for their spot, so its moot. There is no meritocracy in grocery store product placement. For the most part the grocery store doesn't have a formula to decide where to put most things based on sales data. If you sell a cereal or soda or fancy mustard and you want premium shelf height, just pay extra for it. The store basically rents the shelf space out.
This is absolutely true in the USA. Frito Lay has done this for years, paying supermarkets for more and more shelf space, while the smaller, regional competitors were left with less and less room to sell.
This happened to my father in the 1980s when he owned a distributorship for a regional potato chip company here in the Midwest United States.
I've heard from a friend (in Australia) if you don't frequently buy placement you get bumped, and buying placement can be a losing proposition. They raise the price to squeeze all margin so it's just on the edge of making it affordable. You have to say yes to losing money during the promotion ("you'll make it up with brand awareness!") to claw it back by staying on the shelves in between. Otherwise another brand, or sometimes a house brand, takes your place.
It's not just height, it's the positioning at the end of aisles too, and the large 'sales' stickers to draw attention. IIRC they would request an all-or-nothing for your product line, so if it was something like dog food or sauces where you might have multiple variations you had to pay the fee per SKU to be featured, you didn't get to pick and choose. They decided.
Similarly at least one large pharmacy chain supposedly made a significant chunk of profit from charging for catalogue placement.
I don't know about shelf height specifically though, I do know this is an important factor in sales but not sure if there is ongoing 'rent' to pay. There would be a lot of indirect negotiation around wholesale rates that would influence these decisions too.
> Would that extend to grocery stores, where would you force walmart to put their own brands?
It's not a fair comparison if you're at a physical store since things are too different for an analogy. However, if I'm searching on their website and type in a specific brand so I can find which aisle it's in I would expect to get the brand I searched for, not a Great Value knockoff.
I mean that is basically how I find the store brand all the time. Look for the brand name thing I know by heart because the logo has been seared into my brain since birth and then go from there.
It costs me less money travel-wise to go to a non-Walmart grocery store. Within the same cost comparison of traveling, I've got about four different brands of groceries all within a similar price range.
If I had an iPhone, it would be a several hundred dollar proposal (at least!) to shop at a competing store.
You mean the grocery stores that have many competitors who also sell groceries? How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps?
> By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
No, that logic does not compare at all. Google's groceries aren't fungible when compared to Apple's, and vice versa.
If you have been eating Apple's groceries but want to switch to Google's, you have to get your teeth, tongue, throat, and stomach replaced with Google-compatible versions. Plus all of the things you are currently storing in your fridge and freezer at home needs to be thrown out because they will no longer fit in the new Google-compatible fridge/freezer you have to buy. Oh, and for the things that need to be cooked, you'll also need to buy a new Google-compatible stove and oven.
I think if we took the reverse analogy, this would be like a situation where depending on the model of car you owned you could only shop at a specific grocery store.
Bought a Honda? Only Kroger for you.
Ford? You get Albertsons.
There's a sizable purchase with phones and computers that creates a cost to switching stores. There's no cost to me to go to Kroger one week and Albertsons the next.
Something like Amazon is more comparable to grocery stores, but I think there's a "trust" cost that makes them not directly comparable.
But if you have an android phone you can buy apps where ever you choose, even from the developer directly. There are alternative app stores. The market has a low barrier to entry.
Apple only has control over consumers who chose for them to have that control. If you are selling an app to an iPhone user, you are selling to someone who only wants your app if Apple blesses it. If you are an Apple user that doesn't want that, then why did you by an Apple? Free yourself and buy a real computer or phone next time.
Agreed, but regular users might be put off by the scary warning you have to click through on Android to allow an install outside the Play Store. And there is no way to have non-Play apps auto-update. Even alternative stores like F-Droid are not allowed to do this; they have to put up a notification that updates are available, and for each app you have to manually confirm that you want to install the update.
Is this a better situation than on iOS? Yes, of course, definitely. But it's still not a level playing field.
> Apple only has control over consumers who chose for them to have that control. If you are selling an app to an iPhone user, you are selling to someone who only wants your app if Apple blesses it. If you are an Apple user that doesn't want that, then why did you by an Apple? Free yourself and buy a real computer or phone next time.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. People who are in the Apple ecosystem and not Android (and vice versa) have many different reasons for doing so, whether it's because iPhones are seen as a status symbol, or they believe that iOS is more privacy-protecting than Android, or they are in the Apple ecosystem for their desktop experience, and don't want to have to deal with frustrating interop issues. And a host of other reasons.
So sure, a person who buys an iPhone is choosing the restrictions imposed on them, but it's not because they necessarily actively like or want that. They just believe it's something that they will have to give up and deal with if they want the other things.
So no, no one held a gun to their heads and made them buy iPhones, but it's not just a binary decision on a single dimension as to whether or not you buy iPhone or Android.
Some manufacturer will try to do that once self-driving cars become a reality.
"I can take you to Wal-Mart... that's a sponsored destination. But Target will require a $2.00 fee, or you'll have to self-drive. Note: Your insurance rate will also increase."
We need to re-evaluate what "rights" mean in a digital age. Apple should not have a monopoly on digital stores on iOS. "Apple made it so they can do anything they want. Take it or leave it" - is not an acceptable position (in my opinion).
>By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is?
>Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is?
Because the parent poster was applying arbitrary restriction on it (apps, but only ios) to make a point. I replied with the equivalent example for costco (grocery store products, but only kirkland signature).
Because you have both Costco AND Walmart Stores selling their own brand within the same state which allows heavy Store competition within the State along with dozen of others Stores?
The iOS state has 65% of users and 75% of App spending and it has one Store.
You can perfectly have your own retail brand when there are plenty of competition within the market. If you argue there is still another state with diverse choices, you are either hit with a Duopoly argument, or a monopolistic power argument where iOS have too much power within market economy.
People have been using these over simplify analogy with Xbox and Retail and there are not even the same.
Either way, there should be no denying there is something wrong with the way things are currently being handled.
Honestly, if I were to make a platform and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed on it and how they should be ranked in it, I’d just shut it all down, even the company if need be, give their money back to whatever investors there may be, and walk away. Let them have fun building it themselves if they want it to run any other way.
But that’s just me, and it probably speaks volumes about some of my flaws.
I mean, sure, that's fine. Most laws around what things people and corporations are and aren't allowed to do are trade offs. You can build a company and make lots of money, but you have to obey a set of restrictions. If you're not ok with those restrictions, then you don't build a company. That's fine. There are certainly other people who will accept somewhat lower profits (due to these restrictions) in exchange for having the opportunity to make money at all.
The pretty well-known examples of these sorts of restrictions are things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. Antitrust law is on there too, and in my opinion it should be expanded to cover some of the stuff we're talking about here. You seem to not agree, and that's fine. But personally I think we should be doing more to protect customers, even from things they may not realize are hurting them. Right now the only serious choices for a smartphone are iPhone or Android, and while they both have a lot of good things going for them, they also both have significant negatives. I don't want the future to be a techno-dystopia where there is only one "choice", and the manufacturer dictates how we use our devices. It really feels like that's where things are going, though, unless we start requiring platforms be more open. Customers won't demand it, because most of them don't understand the issues around it, so it's likely the only solution is legislation.
As a member of a society there are ground rules you are obliged to abide by in order to participate. The upshot is Apple makes 10s of billions per year while abiding by those standards.
It's a pretty fantastic deal if you can get it and I don't think if regulations on manipulation of the app market is tightened up it would be an undue burden.
You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business so you imagine storming off in a fit of pique but it's really not a bigger version it's a different animal because it's wealth gives it so much power it is in need of greater restraint internal or external and it's massive payroll and base gives it greater obligation to it's customers and staff.
Anyone who would do such a thing would just find themselves looking for a new job after the stockholders fired them.
> You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business
You are extrapolating. Of course I’m aware shareholders would just fire me.
However, adding tens of caveats to what was merely a statement of my visceral and spontaneous reaction to being put in such a situation was, and is, kind of moot.
Honestly, if I were to make an petroleum refining company and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed to be dumped into the river or not I'd just shut it down, even the company if need be, give their money back to whatever investors there may be, and walk away. Let them have fun building it themselves if they want to run any other way.
Yes. And what is the issue with that? As long as you don’t actually dump into the river what you were forbidden to? Unlike quite a few companies all over the world.
A grocery store has limited storage space, a limited amount of advertising space, limited staff, etc, etc. The amount of upkeep is also very different compared to a digital store.
I think its not really an apt point for comparison.
So you would be fine if a separate "Apple Apps Inc" was required by law to exist, and it had created the Files app instead, and it had the same dropbox integration and it was therefore in the accurate metadata, and it surfaced higher than the dropbox app anyway?
Makes no sense. The whole point is they manually boosted Files to make it surface higher. If it surfaces higher under a level playing field, that is fine.
The Files app is bundled with the OS, but not installed by default. It's not exactly "sold" as it's free and isn't ad supported either.
It's hard to find a profit motive here.
Google, on the other hand, has long allowed you to bid on your competitor's product name so you will show up ahead of them in the search results.
They also have a history of scraping other people's content and then more highly rating that scraped content on their own sites in their search engine.
If you are ignorant about it, iCloud support is integrated into the Files App and is the most promoted on its support documents too - https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203052 and https://support.apple.com/en-in/HT206481 ... If you use DropBox app, you are obviously going to prefer DropBox cloud service over iCloud - that not only means a potential loss of revenue in the future but also the fact that they aren't tied into Apple ecosystem and can abandon it. Additionally, anyone not using the Files app also denies Apple the means to collect file metadata which are valuable to profile you.
I'm apparently not the person who is ignorant of the fact that iCloud is not required in any way to use Files.
Any SMB share, Flash drive, or major cloud service will work with it just fine.
If you are trying to come up with a profit motive as large as Google, where they sell search results on other people's product names, you aren't making a compelling case.
I have no issue with a company running a store and selling its own products within, but it has to provide a level playing field.
It's good they fixed it -- that the VP in question didn't know it had been done and then nixed it -- but this shouldn't even be legal in the first place.