People who go on and on about the Google and Amazon "monopolies" -- which only benefit consumers with low prices and expansive services -- this is what actual monopolistic behavior looks like. Apple controls access to a significant share of the mobile application industry and it directly abuses that market power to harm customers by reducing competition and artificially raising prices. Apple is being sued in both US and French courts over it appstore monopoly so let's hope this ridiculous practice is stopped soon.
I can buy a Nest Thermostat from any of thousands of websites and it would work just fine in my home. I can't even get a Steam Link app for free from anyone and have it work effortlessly on my iOS device. These two are not the same, no matter which side you are on.
An example of monopolistic Google behavior was when they refused to make a YouTube app for any Windows platform (Win8, and later Win10) - which is fine - but then they also blocked the app that Microsoft itself has developed. Because they control access to YouTube as a service, they could do that. And because YouTube is the place for videos on the Net, it hurt the platform pretty bad.
Despite the two companies collaborating on an app based on HTML5, Microsoft's app is still breaking YouTube's terms of use.
"Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service - It has been disabled. We value our broad developer community and therefore ask everyone to adhere to the same guidelines"
This is a bad example. MS was just using the video stream directly instead of using the youtube player code that takes care of things like annotations, ads, cards, etc.
A better example is the amazon-google kerfuffle over chromecast/amazon devices. Can't recall who "started" it, but the end results is that amazon doesn't sell chromecast/google home, and google blocks youtube from amazon devices. Yes amazon initially did like MS, but eventually had a proper implementation and google still blocked it.
I detest all of the apps Google makes for iOS because they are very careful not to implement any of the features that differentiate the way an iOS app works than an app on any other platform.
For example, none of the Google apps I have on my iPad support split-screen.
When I calm down and think about it a bit, the original commenter's assertion that apple controls the app market is also flawed. I haven't checked the data lately myself, but I believe that most people use apps on android phones. (It's probably just that not many people on android like to PAY. Which can't really be said to be apple's fault.)
> People who go on and on about the Google and Amazon "monopolies" -- which only benefit consumers with low prices and expansive services
Whoa there, consumers are not the only people who matter. Suppliers are often exploited by monopolies. Have you never heard of the Fair Trade movement? Please do not forget about the suppliers of your cheap shit you don't need.
Also don't forget workers. Companies that engage in anti competitive practices in the market for their products often try to become monopsonist in the market for their workers.
Ah yes, let's suck off one corporate giant to demonstrate how bad another one is.
Google regularly breaks their websites on browsers other than Chrome.
Amazon doesn't sell popular devices competing with their Kindle line, and doesn't make it easy to install apps using Google Play Services on their Kindle devices.
Is there Amazon Kindle app for iOS? If there is, isn't it the exact same type of app as Steam Link? Access your content library, buy more content.
If Apple lets Amazon do this (presumably because Amazon is too big to ignore) and won't let Steam do it (because Steam isn't big enough), then this feels more like a cartel than monopoly.
There is, but the way the Apple app store rules work is that if you are purchasing something for use in the current app, it must go through the IAP API and give Apple their cut. Purchases for things outside the app (like physical items) are fine.
The way this works with Amazon, is in the Amazon store app a user can buy ebooks/audiobooks (along with anything else Amazon sells), and then those books are sent to the Kindle app on iOS. There is no option to buy content directly in the Kindle app.
I also believe the apps cannot directly link to each other as that would circumvent the above.
EDIT
I just checked (it had been awhile) and it looks like you can no longer buy the books within the Amazon store app either, and can only get a sample.
My understanding of Kindle and Audible on iOS is that Amazon does not _sell_ content on the iOS apps. You can only download/access your content. I always found this annoying with Audible and having to use my laptop to purchase and then download in the app. I haven't had an iPhone in a few years but I think the Steam app was similar.
> Given that iPhones account for just 35% of US mobile phones [1] and only around 15% of phone shipments worldwide [2], this is in no way monopolistic
Why do you think that? You are only arguing that "monopoly laws" should be called "oligopoly laws". These laws require abuse of a dominant market position, not a majority share.
> Given that iPhones account for just 35% of US mobile phones [1] and only around 15% of phone shipments worldwide [2], this is in no way monopolistic.
What is monopolistic to you? Does it need to be over 50%? I don't think economists define it that way, they only argue that one company has excessive influence in a market, which means more power than the other companies in that market. That does seem to be true of Apple in the mobile app market.
Your statement reminds me of a reporter who said that Walmart can't possibly be a monopoly because it's revenues are "only" 5% of US consumer spending. It's scares me to death that a single company takes that much of the total, and it's silly to suggest that the largest company in the world by revenue can't possibly be a monopoly.
FWIW, the distribution of phones isn't the same as the distribution of revenue from apps. Apple brings in more app revenue than Google, even though more phones sold run Android.
> People who go on and on about the Google and Amazon "monopolies" -- which only benefit consumers with low prices and expansive services
That's not really true, things like the abundance of counterfeit goods on Amazon (the result of Amazon's policies and its position) are really bad for consumers.
> this is what actual monopolistic behavior looks like. Apple ... abuses [its] power ... by ... artificially raising prices
That's a strange thing to say in the context of digital games, where one of the biggest issues iOS game developers face is consumers not being willing to spend more than trifling amounts for games.
The legislative term is "dominant market position", but that's too long, so everyone just uses monopoly, because it is far shorter and everyone can understand with a bit of thinking what is meant.
> let's hope this ridiculous practice is stopped soon.
I agree that these are monopolies, but it's interesting to me that the behavior in question is viewed as competitive and healthy when a company is small. The primary thing that makes the practice ridiculous is success; becoming so large that what were competitive behaviors become anti-competitive. The same things that people applauded Apple for when it was underdog 20 years ago, are now criticized.
It's a bit ridiculous the amount of resources wasted by everyone having to please all these stores... maybe Europe will force them to come up with a standard so that 1 app will be compatible everywhere (a bit like HTML5) and prevent them from removing any non-malicious apps (which would be clearly defined and easy to understand for any non-attorney)...
I'd question your use of "benefit" and "low prices". Some of their services do not require purchase with currency. That doesn't mean the price for using them is low. It's just different (and often hidden, or outright incalculable).
But Apple doesn't have a significant share of the mobile phone industry - Android (Google) does - with I believe Samsung leading the way. So how can it be monopolistic?
The comparisons in other posts is not quite apples - to - apples (no pun intended) because you can't be a monopoly when you're not in a dominant market position.
Lastly, whether or not the examples you mention "benefit" customers today is irrelevant, as you need to consider the possibility that their dominant position would mean that they might not in the future (i.e. customers not acting in their best long-term interest, or companies leveraging their market dominance in the future for non-customer-centric behavior, etc.) Platitudes like "don't be evil" don't persuade me much.
Edit: don't know why folks are down-voting a comment about US anti-trust law.
I completely agree. But on the flipside, having that control gives you a more secure and robust environment (app store) _almost_ free of spam and phising apps (Windows app store anyone?)
I don't actually see it happening, but it'd be nice if Valve just released the source code and let people compile it for themselves.
I don't think there's any "secret sauce" in the Steam in-home streaming that's actually proprietary/private. It's just a H264 video stream in one direction and controller button presses in the other, over a custom made low latency protocol.
Given Apple and Valve seemed to be working together to bring VR to the Mac recently, I'm surprised they weren't given any leeway at all.
Like many other time this has happened, I expect we'll find out that everything we've heard in the first 24 hours was incomplete or just plain wrong, and in a few days this will all get resolved.
Of course the angriest out there will simply claim it was the result of Apple buckling to public outcry rather than self-correcting over a mistake or misunderstanding, but then those people will always choose to see malevolence in any corporate actions they don't like.
I guess the problem is the store. The app allows to access valve's store (which is far cheaper than games in the apple store). If they remove the ability to buy games I am sure the remote desktop app would be ok.
While I'm a bit sympathetic with the devs here, they got paid, and this was always going to be a risky proposition. They must have known that.
Adding the 3rd largest app store in the US to iOS was always going to be a seizmic shift on the App Store and could cannibalise large parts of the iOS game category.
I've been saying this for years. There needs to be big scary button with lots of warnings that allows the users to download and run whatever binary they want. That should be guaranteed by law for any turing machine.
Curated stores are a great idea but there has to be an alternative.
Readit News
http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-wont-sell-nest-product...
Sounds like the same behavior. Google has been known to replace whole other start-up services or de-list them.
"Yelp And TripAdvisor Team Up To Pile On Google Over Search Monopoly"
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/05/yelp-and-tripadvisor-team...
Dead Comment
"Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service - It has been disabled. We value our broad developer community and therefore ask everyone to adhere to the same guidelines"
https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-win...
My impression was Microsoft being arrogant. Besides, Windows 8/10 users could still access YT via web.
A better example is the amazon-google kerfuffle over chromecast/amazon devices. Can't recall who "started" it, but the end results is that amazon doesn't sell chromecast/google home, and google blocks youtube from amazon devices. Yes amazon initially did like MS, but eventually had a proper implementation and google still blocked it.
For example, none of the Google apps I have on my iPad support split-screen.
When I calm down and think about it a bit, the original commenter's assertion that apple controls the app market is also flawed. I haven't checked the data lately myself, but I believe that most people use apps on android phones. (It's probably just that not many people on android like to PAY. Which can't really be said to be apple's fault.)
Whoa there, consumers are not the only people who matter. Suppliers are often exploited by monopolies. Have you never heard of the Fair Trade movement? Please do not forget about the suppliers of your cheap shit you don't need.
Google regularly breaks their websites on browsers other than Chrome.
Amazon doesn't sell popular devices competing with their Kindle line, and doesn't make it easy to install apps using Google Play Services on their Kindle devices.
If Apple lets Amazon do this (presumably because Amazon is too big to ignore) and won't let Steam do it (because Steam isn't big enough), then this feels more like a cartel than monopoly.
The way this works with Amazon, is in the Amazon store app a user can buy ebooks/audiobooks (along with anything else Amazon sells), and then those books are sent to the Kindle app on iOS. There is no option to buy content directly in the Kindle app.
I also believe the apps cannot directly link to each other as that would circumvent the above.
EDIT
I just checked (it had been awhile) and it looks like you can no longer buy the books within the Amazon store app either, and can only get a sample.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/13/ios-and-samsung-market-sha...
[2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/02/apples-iphone-buc...
Why do you think that? You are only arguing that "monopoly laws" should be called "oligopoly laws". These laws require abuse of a dominant market position, not a majority share.
What is monopolistic to you? Does it need to be over 50%? I don't think economists define it that way, they only argue that one company has excessive influence in a market, which means more power than the other companies in that market. That does seem to be true of Apple in the mobile app market.
Your statement reminds me of a reporter who said that Walmart can't possibly be a monopoly because it's revenues are "only" 5% of US consumer spending. It's scares me to death that a single company takes that much of the total, and it's silly to suggest that the largest company in the world by revenue can't possibly be a monopoly.
FWIW, the distribution of phones isn't the same as the distribution of revenue from apps. Apple brings in more app revenue than Google, even though more phones sold run Android.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/259510/revenue-distribut...
That's not really true, things like the abundance of counterfeit goods on Amazon (the result of Amazon's policies and its position) are really bad for consumers.
That's a strange thing to say in the context of digital games, where one of the biggest issues iOS game developers face is consumers not being willing to spend more than trifling amounts for games.
> a significant share
If it's only "a significant share" it's by definition not a monopoly.
Google being the de facto gatekeeper to the web, able to enforce its own whims (such as AMP), "only benefits consumers"? Please.
I'm suspicious of this given that both are shareholder-owned, eventually the shareholders are going to want a benefit too.
I agree that these are monopolies, but it's interesting to me that the behavior in question is viewed as competitive and healthy when a company is small. The primary thing that makes the practice ridiculous is success; becoming so large that what were competitive behaviors become anti-competitive. The same things that people applauded Apple for when it was underdog 20 years ago, are now criticized.
There are enough alternatives to the iPhone.
Maybe if BMW or Toyota were the market leaders in infotainment hardware
The comparisons in other posts is not quite apples - to - apples (no pun intended) because you can't be a monopoly when you're not in a dominant market position.
Lastly, whether or not the examples you mention "benefit" customers today is irrelevant, as you need to consider the possibility that their dominant position would mean that they might not in the future (i.e. customers not acting in their best long-term interest, or companies leveraging their market dominance in the future for non-customer-centric behavior, etc.) Platitudes like "don't be evil" don't persuade me much.
Edit: don't know why folks are down-voting a comment about US anti-trust law.
Deleted Comment
Gaming in the apple eco system is horrible already but not even be allowed to stream?
Extremely stupid, Outright hostile
"Business conflict"? Now Apple suddenly becomes a real obstruction in my life and ultimately an enemy. This is switch to android level of bad.
I think I'll clip and save this comment to demonstrate to my students the definition of an "overreaction."
I don't think there's any "secret sauce" in the Steam in-home streaming that's actually proprietary/private. It's just a H264 video stream in one direction and controller button presses in the other, over a custom made low latency protocol.
Given Apple and Valve seemed to be working together to bring VR to the Mac recently, I'm surprised they weren't given any leeway at all.
Of course the angriest out there will simply claim it was the result of Apple buckling to public outcry rather than self-correcting over a mistake or misunderstanding, but then those people will always choose to see malevolence in any corporate actions they don't like.
I am guessing anyway
This is a very strange decision.
Or just the regular Steam app. Check the screenshot page on the AppStore and you'll see the store with prices and all.
Adding the 3rd largest app store in the US to iOS was always going to be a seizmic shift on the App Store and could cannibalise large parts of the iOS game category.
Dead Comment
https://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/john-carmack-steve-jobs...
Curated stores are a great idea but there has to be an alternative.