Apple Kills Google's Enterprise Development Certification

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You do actually, at least in the EU (not sure about the US, which is where the two acts you mention applies). 

 

Article 102 of the EU antitrust treaty specifically says that it "prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position". 

Please note that it specifically says firms that hold a dominant position. 

 

iOS has 28% market share in the EU. That's why there are "different rules" for Google, Microsoft and Apple. Because Apple aren't big enough where they can abuse their position unlike the other two who has over 70% and 80% market share in their respective categories. 

I was referring to the US,  As I pointed to two laws in the US which can be used against any company even when it doesn't have total dominance in a market.  

 

With regard to 102, the EU has some ways to determine a monopoly, it's not a straight numbers game because they us the term "relative market".

 

The first of the defining factors for this in EU law is the hypothetical monopolist test, which states if the alleged monopolist increases the price, can the user move to another solution?  if they have an iphone then they can't as it's tied to the app store. 

 

The second test deals more with intuitive use of the product, but again the iphone essentially being a computing device, If the maker can restrict what apps can be installed or revoke permission at any time then is also fails.  The 28% market share means very little if consumers 100% are locked in.

 

I am sure there are good reasons the EU hasn't done anything about this yet, but I won;t be surprised if it becomes a major issue within the next 5 years.  Feel free to book mark that come back to me if it doesn't happen.

 

Now you know me, I usually oppose laws interfering in private companies design of their own products, I disagreed with the USB charger ruling, however my distaste for this extends to all the companies and is growing as the long term effects on the consumer go well beyond the scope of the original purchase.  

[79wjd]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I was referring to the US,  As I pointed to two laws in the US which can be used against any company even when it doesn't have total dominance in a market.  

 

With regard to 102, the EU has some ways to determine a monopoly, it's not a straight numbers game because they us the term "relative market".

 

The first of the defining factors for this in EU law is the hypothetical monopolist test, which states if the alleged monopolist increases the price, can the user move to another solution?  if they have an iphone then they can't as it's tied to the app store. 

 

The second test deals more with intuitive use of the product, but again the iphone essentially being a computing device, If the maker can restrict what apps can be installed or revoke permission at any time then is also fails.  The 28% market share means very little if consumers 100% are locked in.

Except that they're not locked in since they could easily switch to Android. It's still absolutely a choice to use an iPhone over the numerous (and cheaper) Android devices.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, 79wjd said:

Except that they're not locked in since they could easily switch to Android. It's still absolutely a choice to use an iPhone over the numerous (and cheaper) Android devices.

 

I think many people might disagree that buying a new phone is a valid solution.  If MS made all software for windows available only through the windows store, would you argue people could just switch to mac? 

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I think many people might disagree that buying a new phone is a valid solution.  If MS made all software for windows available only through the windows store, would you argue people could just switch to mac? 

But this isn't a question of Apple changing policies and suddenly blocking an alternative storefront. The App Store is and was the only way to get apps. If you bought any iPhone, then you did so under the condition that you had no choice but to download an app from the App Store. Had they sold iPhones with the ability to use other sources and then took it away, then I could see some argument being made there -- similar to the class action against Sony when they blocked Linux on the PS3 after the fact.

 

I'd also argue that the analogy is a bit different since iPhone -> Android has many low price options whereas Windows -> Mac will generally require laying down a "sizable" amount of money.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

But this isn't a question of Apple changing policies and suddenly blocking an alternative storefront. The App Store is and was the only way to get apps. If you bought any iPhone, then you did so under the condition that you had no choice but to download an app from the App Store. Had they sold iPhones with the ability to use other sources and then took it away, then I could see some argument being made there -- similar to the class action against Sony when they blocked Linux on the PS3 after the fact.

That's just the issue,  as is already being tried in the courts, it's not a change in condition that is the problem, its the absolute control apple has that is being tested.   

 

6 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

I'd also argue that the analogy is a bit different since iPhone -> Android has many low price options whereas Windows -> Mac will generally require laying down a "sizable" amount of money.

If I bought an iphone and I had to change I would want to buy something of equivalent quality, I personally don't believe there are many android options that match the iphone but are cheaper.  Suffice to say, the cost to the end user is not the dictating factor, the inability for a consumer to avoid a specific practice is enough. In my case it is the fact apple can dictate which apps remain active on devices they do not own.  But for others there is the current lawsuit (apple v pepper), which is arguing that apple have overcharged ios customers (not sure how they will prove that) abusing the monopoly they have in the ios app market. 

 

The fact iphone only makes up 28% of the market is not enough to dodge the anti consumer accusation and it's not enough to dodge anti trust if it turns out that not allowing 3rd party apps on ios is illegal under the clayton or sherman act.