The demise of a mobile app, Apple cult-style

[kodiak799]

Hmm, maybe my memory is slipping, but I don't remember the DOJ stepping in until Microsoft was accused of bullying computer suppliers.

Not sure how it all went down. I think Netscape sent a letter to the DOJ detailing many of the issues you mentioned and that prompted the DOJ to re-open an anti-trust case against MS.

Here's an interesting summary. Just a few pertinent tidbits. Obviously this isn't remotely on the same scale as the Netscape case,
"Consumers and computer manufacturers should have the right to choose the software they want installed on their personal computers," said Attorney General Janet Reno. "We are acting to preserve competition and promote innovation in the computer software industry."

"This action will protect innovation by ensuring that anyone who develops a software program will have a fair opportunity to compete in the marketplace," said Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Antitrust Division.
Justice Department Files Antitrust Suit Against Microsoft for Unlawfully Monopolizing Computer Software Markets

One other fun link:
"Now it looks like the first official investigation into Apple’s business practices is about to be underway, courtesy of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, who has completed negotiations with the Department of Justice to examine whether Apple’s limitations on [COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=&quot][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=&quot]software[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
that can be submitted to the App Store unfairly harms competition."[/COLOR]
Wall Street Journal: FTC Launches Investigation into Anti-Trust Claims Against Apple | Cult of Mac

 

[kodiak799]

Hmm, maybe my memory is slipping, but...

Apparently my memory is slipping, or it was not as significant an event as I remmember. Any rate, Wikipedia does not agree with me, and that's as much research effort as I'm willing to put in for the night.

The temporary redress focused on the contracts and licensing agreements, for what it's worth. But that's still a pretty good corollary - whereas MS was limiting competition contractually with OEM's via it's market power, Apple owns its app market and so accomplishes the same thing directly.

All the big boys do it in one form or another. What's interesting with Apple - and good for consumers - is I think ultimately aspects of IOS are not going to be able to remain closed, app store at a minimum. DOJ is looking at the ITunes thing, too, so could be some big developments on the horizon (or could be nothing).

 

[ramtek]

No, they just don't allow you to use a flash compiler. Totally different ...I think

 

[TwerpPoet]

It's going to be interesting, in a gruesome sort of way.

As we continue to globalize, more companies are going to supersize and diversify. As they grow the temptation, perhaps even with the best of intentions, to exercise anti-competive strategies with monopoly like power is going to be irresistible.

The balance between government, civil, and corporate power is at stake. The upheaval could be as drastic (though hopefully less violent) than Unionization. And this time it's going to be world wide.

Heck, maybe we'll get the beginnings of a world government out of the struggle. Global government organizations are probably the only power that has a chance of offsetting global corporations. Well, maybe global consumer organizations could have an impact, but they would have little power without some sort of world sized laws and enforcement behind them.

Interesting times. I rather be bored myself.

 

[Bob Dammit]

Who knows what evil will threaten the realm on the morrow? Perhaps Darth Jobs will again attack the Android alliance, Beast Gates rise from his retirement and begin the apocalypse, or Google attempt to peek under yon maidens skirt and reveal her panty color to base strangers.

Be prepared, polish thy rhetoric, hone thy wit, and keep thy sophisms close to hand. The next level awaits, heros. :icon_ devil:

Best post in the whole thread. IBTL!

 

[czerdrill]

I don't think your hypothetical situation fits because Apple isn't using vertical integration to any sort of advantage. It doesn't create it's own News App (the Craftsman tools) and forbid other competing news apps (the off-brand tools) from entering the store. Instead, Apple allows third party vendors to create products natively with their own product, and handle distribution through their own distribution channel if they deem the product is worth the cost in overhead of their distribution system.

Because the content is still readily accessible and can be consumed through iOS devices, it isn't feasible to claim that this move substantially reduces competition.

Fair points, but MS never prevented Netscape from being loaded, yet steps it took to make it difficult to install or switch browsers were a problem. You're saying Apple isn't blocking the content but in fact merely preventing apps that make accessing content easier - especially when that is the direction of mobile apps - puts an app at a competitive disadvantage. And in that regard Apple's action here is very similar to the finding against MS.

You can look at Google Voice (and that really should be the end of this discussion) and the use of 3rd party development tools for other examples. As a monopoly, which in this case the app store is because of IOS being closed, you simply can't arbitrarily block apps from being distributed. When those arbitrary actions reduce competition - whether Apple competes directly or not - the DOJ typically has something to say about it. Mac can do it because they only have 5% market share, but with IOS you are talking 25-30% share and that becomes an issue. It's not about Apple profiting but that this company suffers economic loss as a result of Apple's anti-competitive behavior.

And you simply can't say "go across the street". You're dealing with contracts and phones worth hundreds, even thousands of dollars and are a stretch for many consumers (good 'ol USA spend spend spend), not to mention money already spent on apps they've purchased. It puts that developer at a rather large disadvantage when he can't access 25% or more of the market unless people spend hundreds of dollars to switch phones, if it's even feasible. No one is going to make that move for a single app, especially one just for very targeted news.

Nor can the developer simply go to another IOS app store as an alternative - only one game in town that arbitrarily sends him packing. Sure, they'll get away with it because this guy can't take them on like Google, but that doesn't make it right or justifiable.

sure you can arbitrarily block apps from being distributed. apple does it all the time. as per their regulations. which you tried to pass of as a crystal clear case of porn or malicious software only. this android app was arbitrarily blocked. and it's going to remain blocked, and its not going to be the DOJ or FCC who unblocks it. it'll be apple, if they feel like it. at their sole discretion. for any reason.

and yes you can go across the street. this android magazine guy will create an android app, and people like you will download it to support his stupid cause to get an android magazine published on the iphone app store. you sound like a vigilante for android devs or something. pretty corny.

it has nothing to do with being right or justifiable. apple says they don't want your app, and that's it. you can't do anything about it. it makes you mad, it makes you whine, it makes you throw a tantrum. but you can't do nothing about it. if they don't block the content, you have no leg to stand on. if google created an android magazine and tried to publish it on the iphone's app store, it'd get rejected. just because it's google and they can "take apple on" is not going to make apple say "you know what...we're going to go against our policies and app review guidelines to accept this app! Hurrah google! hurrah!"

its funny because you seem intelligent by the words you use, but the things you say using those words are utter stupidity.

 

[Vulcan1600]

Closed for clean up.